Find a Lawyer

---Ss. 4 & 15--Pre-emption suit--Pre-emptor's superior right of pre emption qua vendees--Proof--Vendee claiming to be co-sharer in village and denying superior right of pre-emptor to pre-empt sale--Vendee failing to produce 'Jamabandi Zere Kasht to prove .such claim and Khasra Girdawari produced also not pertaining to relevant crop--Jamabandi produced by vendee having been prepared long before disputed sale was effected--Such jamabandi, held, was not relevant document- -Vendee, failed to prove right to retain property- -Pre-emptor's superior right of pre-emption qua vendee, established in circumstances.

---Ss. 4 & 13--Pre-emption suit--Single suit filed--Maintainability Two transactions of sale through different sale-deeds, held, could be pre-empted through single suit--One pre-emption suit Bled by rival pre-emptor with regard to entire disputed land, was maintainable in circumstances.

Rao Muhammad Ayyub Khan for Petitioner.

This civil revision arises from the judgment and decree, dated 18-11-1982 of learned Additional District Judge confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28-3-1981 of learned Civil Judge Rajanpur decreeing the suit for possession by pre-emption filed by lqbal Ahmad and others against Ghulam Akbar petitioner herein.

2. The facts leading up to this civil revision in brief are that Ghulam Akbar petitioner herein purchased the suit land from Mst. Mahmooda Bibi and Mst. Anwar Bibi through registered sale-deeds, dated 14-1-1980. Iqbal Ahmad filed two separate suits for possession through pre-emption whereas Hayat Ali Shah respondent No. 1 filed one suit with regard to the entire land as rival pre-emptor. These 3 suits against the petitioner were, however, consolidated by the trial Court on 8-3-1981. Proceedings were recorded in Suit No. 5181. The suit were contested by present petitioner. On the pleadings the following issues are framed:--

(1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the defendants

(2) Whether the ostensible sale price Rs.1,900 was fixed in good faith or paid in fact

(3) If issue No.2 is not proved. then what is the market value of the suit land

(4) Whether the suit is time-barred

(5) Relief.

The trial Court found issues Nos.1 and 4 against the petitioner defendant. As for issues Nos.2 and 3 the trial Court held that Rs.1,900 were bona fide fixed and actually paid as sale price. On the issue of relief', the Court decreed the suit in favour of Iqbal Ahmad and Hayat Ali Shah, the rival pre-emptors giving the rival pre-emptors half/half suit land subject to payment of Rs.950 each. Feeling aggrieved Ghulam Akbar petitioner herein filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 18-11-1982. Hence this revision.

Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned Courts below on issue No.1 alone. He has submitted:-

(i) That the documentary evidence brought on the record by the petitioner, i.e. copy of jamabandi Exh.D.6, copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.7 clearly prove that the petitioner was co-sharer in the village and as such respondent had no superior right to pre-empt the sale;

(ii) that since the suit land was transferred in favour of the petitioner through separate saledeeds, single suit of Hayat Ali Shah, respondent No.2 with regard to the subject-matter of the two sale-deeds was legally not maintainable.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the, documents Exh.D.6 and Exh.D.7, I find that the sale was effected on 14-1-1980, i.e. during Rabi, 1980 and as such Jamabandi Exh.D.6, which was prepared in 1975-76 was not a relevant document. The Jamabandi Zerkasht was not produced by the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that he was a co-sharer in the year 1980 or not. As for Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.7, it also does not pertain to the relevant crop i.e. Rabi, 1980 and as such fails to advance the case of the petitioner. For these reasons I am of the opinion that there is no force in contention No.l raised by the learned counsel. As for contention No.2, I find that this objection was not raised in the written statement, no issue was framed and as such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate at this stage. Even, otherwise, the two transactions of the sale through different sale-deeds in the circumstances of the case could be pre-empted through single suit. this petition

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.