Pakistan Case Law← Search
1991 SCMR 1903

MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs ABDUL AZIZ Since Dead Now

Citation1991 SCMR 1903
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.367-R of 1989
Date1989-10-17
Judge(s)Naimuddin, Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Nasim Hasan Shah
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---A house situated in Mohallah Shah Chan Chiragh, Rawalpindi was sold by the brother of Abdul Aziz, predecessor-in---interest of Respondents Nos.1 to 5, in favour of Muhammad Hanif, petitioner, through a Registered Sale-Deed dated 6-11-1972. A pre-emption suit was filed by Abdul Aziz, aforesaid, for which the following issues arose:----

(1) Whether Mohallah Shah Chan Chiragh is a recognized Sub-Division? OPP

(2) If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether custom of pre-emption existed in the said Sub- Division at the commencement of Pre-emption Act? OPP The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 17-5-1978 holding that Mohallah Shah Chan Chiragh was a recognized Sub-Division for the purposes of pre-emption and that the custom of pre-emption existed in the said Mohallah. The learned District Judge, on appeal, upheld the decision of the learned trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 12-2-1985. These judgments and decrees were also upheld on second appeal by the High Court vide judgment dated 2-7-1989.

2. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem in support of this petition who has vigorously submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on the record to establish the existence of the custom of pre-emotion in Mohallah Shah Chan Chiragh at the commencement of the Pre-emotion Act.

4. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by all the three Courts below and it has been found that the evidence on the record and the other circumstances clearly show that the custom of pre- emotion did exist in the said Sub-Division at the commencement of the Pre-emotion Act.

5. We are inclined to agree with this assessment of the situation and hence find no ground for interference.

6. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search