Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Regular First Appeal No. 142 of 1985, decided on 6th December, 1986:
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Collusion‑‑Appellant contending that fact that plaintiff respondent was son of vendor and lived with him was a strong evidence to prove collusion but documents tendered in evidence by appellant not sufficient to prove same‑‑Even otherwise superior right of pre‑emptor not disputed‑‑Order decreeing suit maintained.
Munawwar Hussain for Appellants.
Mian Iqbal Hussain for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986.
.‑‑Facts necessary for decision of this appeal are as follows:‑--
Hassan Din father of Hadayat Ali plaintiff agreed to sell land measuring 228 Kanals 18 Marlas in village Daullo Khurd, Tehsil and District Lahore to Muhammad Sharif and Ali Ahmad. He backed out from the said agreement. A suit for specific performance of contract was, therefore, filed by Muhammad Sharif and Ali Ahmad against Hassan Din which was decreed on 8th December, 1981. In consequence of the decree, sale‑deed, dated 8th March, 1983, was executed in favour of Muhammad Sharif and Ali Ahmad on payment of Rs.4,57,800. Hadayat Ali filed the present suit on 29th March, 1983, to pre‑empt the said sale. Muhammad Sharif and Ali Ahmad resisted the suit. It was pleaded by them that the suit was collusive; that it was not maintainable under section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act; that the suit was barred under subsection 3(5) of the Pre‑emption Act; and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The superior right of pre‑emption was also denied. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 4th February, 1985, decreed the suit of Hadayat Ali with costs on payment of Rs.4,57,800. Hence this appeal.
2. We have carefully gone through the record of this case and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Only issues 1 and 2 were challenged before us. It was contended that Hadayat Ali plaintiff‑respondent was son of Hassan Din vendor. He lived with his father which circumstance is a strong evidence to prove collusion; secondly, that the present suit was not maintainable under section 15 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act. The learned counsel drew our attention to various documents placed on record by the parties. EXh.P.l is cop y of mutation No.1690 which has also been tendered in evidence as Exh. D.3. I4 only shows that Hadayat Ali plaintiff had purchased land from Muhammad Umar in 1979 and thus, become co‑owner in the Khata. Exh.P.2 is copy of Register Haqdaran, Exh.P.3 is copy of the sale deed on the basis of which present suit for pre‑emption has been filed, Exh.P.4 is copy of Register Haqdaran and Exh.P.5 is copy of Khasra Girdawari. No other document was produced by the plaintiff. The defendant vendee produced copy of Register Haqdaran EXh.D.l (Also exhibited as P.4) copy of mutation No.1689 Exh.D.2, copy of mutation No.1690 Exh.D.3 also exhibited as EXh.P.l, copy of plaint Exh.D.4 in civil suit Hadayat Ali, Maqsood Alam v. Muhammad Sharif and Ahmad Ali, copy of the order Exh.D.5 dated 31st July, 1982 in the plaint EXh.D.4, copy of plaint Exh.P.6 in a suit for pre‑emption by Maqsood Alam against Muhammad Sharif and Ali Ahmad in the Court of Collector, Lahore Cantonment, copies of applications under section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of stay Exhs.D.7 and D.8 in R.F.A. No.201 of 1981 and the orders passed on them Exh.D.9, copies of applications under section 151 C.P.C. for interim injunction Exh.D.10 and EXh.D.11 in R.F.A. No.201 of 1981 and the orders on those applications Exhs. D.12 and D.13. Some other documents were also placed on record which were only marked but not exhibited or admitted in evidence. The parties did not lead any oral evidence in support of their respective evidence.
3. We have carefully examined the documentary evidence. The documents tendered in evidence by the defendant‑appellants do not prove collusion between Hadayat Ali plaintiff and his father Hassan Din. The simple fact that both of them lived together in one house would not mean that Hadayat Ali filed the present suit at the instance of his father or with his collusion or for his benefit. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellants was not able to say much in support of his contention on point of collusion. His only contention was that a presumption of collusiveness should be drawn in the instant case because firstly, Hadayat Ali was son of Hassan Din vendor and secondly, that they were living in one house. We find this argument absolutely baseless and misconceived.
The contention that the present suit was not maintainable under section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act is also without any merit. The land in dispute was agricultural village immovable property. Hadayat Ali admittedly is son of Hassan Din vendor. Section 15 Punjab Pre‑emption Act, in no way, bars the present suit. The superior right of Hadayat Ali was not disputed before us.
4. In view of the above discussion, we find no merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./688/L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer