Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.2141 of 1986, decided on 5th November, 1986.

---Ss.19 & 20--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984), Art.114- Estoppel--Plea of--Proof--Very strong and cogent evidence, held, would be needed to prove plea of estoppel---Evidence led in suit for pre-emption by vendees/petitioners to prove that pre-emptor respondent was present at time of sale, being not of required standard which also stood rebutted by statement of respondent--Two Court; below were justified to hold that petitioners had failed to prove issue of estoppel in circumstances.

Ch. Nazar Hussain for Petitioners.

This civil revision has arisen out of a pre--emption suit brought by respondent No.l, Ashiq Ali, for possession of certain land sole: by his step-mother, Mst. Fatima in favour of Muhammad Zubair, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Rafique. Muhammad Zubair has since died and is represented by 176t.Phama and Muhammad Ashraf, who are respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein. The other vendees, namely, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Rafique are petitioners before me. The petitioners and defendants Nos.2 and 3, who were defendants in the suit, resisted the suit inter alia or the ground that respondent No.l (plaintiff) had waived his right of pre-emption. This plea, however, did not find favour with the Civil Judge, who heard the suit, and the suit was decreed by him. The petitioners went in appeal before an Additional District Judge, but without success. Hence this civil revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.l (plaintiff) lived with the vendor and had arrange bargain relating to the land in dispute and, therefore, he was estopped from filing the suit.

3. The petitioners examined three witnesses, namely, Taj Muhammad (D.W.1), Mir Dad (D.W.2) and Muhammad Aslam (D.W.3) to substantiate their plea of estoppel.

4. Taj Muhammad made contradictory statement in respect of residence of the vendor, namely, Mst. Fatima. It was first said by him that she lived with the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) but a little later he deposed that before the sale had taken place she had started living with him (Taj Muhammad). It was admitted by hire that the vendor was step-mother of respondent No.l and that he had bickering with the said respondent. Due to above contradictions in statement of D.W.1 he is not a trustworthy witness. He is also inimically disposed towards respondent No. 1. No reliance can, therefore be placed ors his statement.

5. It was stated by Mir Dad that Mst. Fatima was the second wife of Rehmat Ali. According to him, respondent No.l was his son from the first wife. It was disclosed by Mir Dad that during his life time Rehmat Ali gave half of his land to respondent No. 1 and the other half to Mst. Fatima and that respondent No.l did not live with Rehmat Ali who resided along with his said wife, namely, Mst. Fatima. They had partitioned the house for the purpose. According to Mir Dad, respondent No.l had strained relations with the vendor (Mst. Fatima) at the time of the sale in dispute, although they lived in one house having separate doors. Thus according to him they had separate establishments. All this would show that the petitioners' version that respondent No.l and the, vendor lived together was belied by Mir Dad.

6. Third witness of the petitioners, namely, Muhammad Aslam is one of the petitioners. He said that, respondent No.l, his son and Mat. Fatima lived together at the time of the sale. It was, however, admitted by him that Rehmat Ali (father of respondent No.l and husband of Mst. Fatima) had given half of the land to Mst. Fatima and the other half to respondent No.l. If respondent No.l and Mst. Fatima were on good terms there was hardly any occasion for Rehmat Ali to distribute land as aforesaid. It was admitted by Muhammad Aslam that respondent No.l and his sister had filed a suit against Mst. Fatima, who was their step-mother. This suit would not have been brought if their relations were not strained. Muhammad Aslam said that the bargain was arranged by respondent No. 1 in the presence of Mir Dad and Taj Muhammad but Mir Dad and Taj Muhammad- did not say so.

7. It is evident from the petitioners' own evidence that the witnesses examined by them, namely; Taj Muhammad and Mir Dad did not support their version. Due to this very reason they were declared hostile. 11 is not denied that the vendor was step-mother of respondent No.l. That they had strained relations is clear from the statement of Muhammad Aslam petitioner and the statement of Mir Dad. In this state of affair. respondent No.l could not be expected to arrange bargain of the land on behalf of the vendor. There is no evidence arranging to bargain by respondent No.1 except the of Muhammad Aslam petitioner which does not cut much According to him, Taj Muhammad and Mir Dad were also present of striking the bargain but as indicated above, they did the statement of the said ,petitioner regarding the role of No. 1. As stated earlier, Taj Muhammad is also inimically disposed towards respondent No. 1. Very strong and cogent evidence is needed to prove the plea of estoppel but the evidence led by the petitioners is not of that type. It also stands rebutted by the statement of respondent No.l to the effect that he was not present at the time of sale. In the circumstances, the two Courts below were justified in holding that the petitioners had failed to prove the issue of estoppel.

8. There is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./M-137/L Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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