Mst. AYESHA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD SAJID and another
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the rejection of the petitioner's pre-emption suit for possession of land. The core legal question concerns whether a pre-emption suit filed in 1980 could be maintained and decreed on the basis of being a collateral or co-sharer without pleading Talabs under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, and absent a pre-emption decree before 31 July 1986. The Supreme Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed because no decree for possession by pre-emption had been passed in favour of the petitioner before 31 July 1986, rendering it impossible to decree the suit on the basis of being a collateral of the vendor and co-sharer in the estate. The key principle laid down is that pre-emption suits filed prior to the relevant cutoff and lacking a decree by 31 July 1986 cannot be sustained on grounds no longer recognized by law.
- Whether a pre-emption suit can be decreed on the basis of being a collateral and co-sharer without a pre-emption decree having been passed in favour of the plaintiff before 31 July 1986?
- Can a plaint be rejected for failure to disclose Talabs as envisaged by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 in a suit filed in 1980?
- Section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal which is directed against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8-3-1993, rises from the acts that on 1-6-1980, Mst. Ayesha Bibi (petitioner) filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land measuring 40 Kanals situate in Mauza Virke Kohna, Tehsil Chunian; District Kasur, on the basis of being Yak Jaddi of the vendor and co-sharer in Mauza/estate, in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian. The suit was resisted. The trial'Court rejected the plaint on 21-1-1992 on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose Talabs as envisaged by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and that no decree for possession by pre- emption could be granted to a collateral of the vendor and an owner in the estate/Mauza. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against this judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chunian, on 22-7-1992. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a Revision Petition before the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 8-3-1993.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the suit was filed in the year 1980, it was not possible to state Talabs/demands as envisaged by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, in the plaint. So, the plaint could not have been rejected for want of the disclosure of Talabs in the plaint.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel declined to interfere with the impugned order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there was no decree for possession by pre-emption passed in favour of the petitioner before 31st day of July, 1986 and as such it was/is not possible to decree the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff on the basis of her being collateral of the vendor and co-sharer in the estate/Mauza. This petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
Cited by 4 cases
- HUMAYAN ARSHAD Versus GHULAM RASOOL 2001 CLC 1291
- AZIZUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD ASI.AM And Other 1995 MLD 1854
- AZIZUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others 1995 MLD 1854
- AZIZUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM Etc K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 39