SIRAJUL ISLAM And 3 Others vs AHMED IDRIS And 14 Other
This matter involves five consolidated appeals arising from pre-emption suits, concerning the interpretation of exemption claims under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950. The core legal question presented was whether a vendee, in order to claim the benefit of the exemption provided under section 5(c) of the Act, is legally required to purchase a partitioned holding or, alternatively, obtain the consent of all co-sharers prior to the purchase. The Supreme Court addressed this issue by referencing its prior determination in Fazal Karim v. Muhammad Zaman (PLD 1989 SC 764). The Court held that the High Court's interpretation, which imposed the requirement of purchasing a partitioned holding or obtaining prior consent, was incorrect. Consequently, the Court answered the legal question in the negative. The principle established is that the exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950 does not necessitate that a vendee must purchase a partitioned holding or secure the consent of all co-sharers as a condition precedent to claiming the exemption. The appeals were decided accordingly.
- Does a vendee seeking the benefit of section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950 need to purchase a partitioned holding?
- Is it a legal requirement for a vendee to obtain the consent of all co-sharers before purchasing property to claim exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950?
- Section 5(c), N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J: --These five appeals, two by the plaintiffs and three by the vendees have arisen out of pre-emption suits. All the cases relate to claim of exemption from pre- emption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950. The question for examination noted in one of these cases reads as follows:-- "Whether the High Court has correctly laid down the law that a vendee seeking benefit of section 5(c) of the Pre-emption Act must purchase partitioned holding or before purchase seek and obtain consent of all the co-sharers."
2. This very question having since been examined by this Court, has been answered in the negative.
3. See Fazal Karim v. Muhammad Zaman (PLD 1989 SC 764). None of the learned counsel appearing for the parties has been able to satisfy us that any other aspect of the question on which leave to appeal was granted requires any further examination. Therefore, all these appeals are decided accordingly with the result that Civil Appeals Nos. 8-P/85 and 29-P/86 which are filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed while Civil Appeals Nos. 40-P/83, 41-P/83 and 8-P/84 which are vendees' appeals, are allowed. The impugned judgments in the former appeals are affirmed while the impugned judgments in the latter are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 2 cases
- SIRAJ UMER vs NAZIR MUHAMMAD KHAN PLD 1992 Supreme Court 427 .
- SIRAJ UMER Versus NAZIR MUHAMMAD KHAN 1992 PLD 427