Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1979 Lahore 23

ALLAH RAKHI AND Another vs MALIK KHAN

CitationPLD 1979 Lahore 23
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No. 685 of 1975
Date1976-01-13
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan
ResultH.

This civil revision arises out of a suit brought by the respondent to pre-empt a sale of about 3 marlas of agricultural land made by petitioner No. 1 in favour of her daughter who is petitioner No. 2.

The sale was effected through a registered sale deed dated 27-6-72. The respondent based his superior right on the assertion that he was a tenant-at-will in the land effected by the sale. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 26-6-74. The respondent preferred an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Jhelum on 11-2-75.

2. The only question for consideration in this civil revision is whether the right of pre-emption was available to the respondent. It is not disputed before me that the respondent was a tenant-at-will in the land in dispute. In order to succeed in the suit it was necessary for the respondent to show that his preferential right existed at the time when the sale was made, for the right of pre-emption is in fact a right of substitution. As already stated above the sale was effected on 27-6 72. The right of pre-emption was conferred for the first time upon tenants-at-will by Martial Law Regulation No.

115. By expression this right was to come into existence from Kharif, 1972. The expression Kharif has not been defined in the regulation. In Ferozul Loghaat Fars; the word `Kharif' is described to connote Savni or the weather in which the Jowar and Makaee are found. According to the Urdu Loghaat compiled by the Urdu Markazi Board the word `kharif' means that the crop which is found in autumn. It appears to me that kharlf refers to the season which falls between the summer and the winter season. In thi case the impugned sale took place in the middle of the summer season which could hardly be described as kharif. I should, therefore, think that at the time of the impugned sale the respondent did not possess any superior right of pre-emption.

3. For the reasons stated above, I accept this civil revision, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge and dismiss the suit of the respondent with costs throughout.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch