INAYAT vs ALTAF ALI and others
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal and upheld concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a pre-emption dispute. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had substantiated his claim of tenancy over the disputed property and whether the respondents' suit was barred by the law of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his plea of tenancy, as his own witnesses did not support the claim of possession. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commences from the date of the attestation of the mutation, rather than the date of its entry, particularly when no evidence exists regarding the delivery of possession prior to attestation. The Court concluded that the respondents, as collaterals of the vendor, possessed a superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, as no legal infirmity was found in the impugned judgment.
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of entry of a mutation or the date of its attestation?
- Can a claim of tenancy be sustained without evidence of possession at the time of sale?
- Are collaterals of a vendor entitled to a superior right of pre-emption?
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 7-3-2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, filed by the petitioner and maintained the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. We need not to give details of the facts of this case as the same have been amply dealt with by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in the impugned judgment.
3. The crucial point required consideration in this case is whether the petitioner's claim being tenant of the disputed property got support from the evidence brought on record. The answer to this question is in negative. The two Courts below i,e, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, after scanning the entire evidence have come to a conclusion that the petitioner has totally failed to substantiate his plea of tenancy. Even witnesses produced by him, D. W.1 Talib Hussain and D.W.2 Inayat Hussain, had not stated in their testimony that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land at the time of its sale as tenant. On the contrary, the respondents have successfully substantiated their superior right by producing pedigree-table Exh.P.2. The other plea of the petitioner that the suit filed by the respondents was barred by time has also been repelled by the cogent reasons by the Courts below. It would be appropriate to mention here that mutation was entered by Patwari on 28-3-1974 while the same was sanctioned on 21-10-1974. The learned Courts below have rightly stated that the limitation would start in this case from the date of attestation of mutation i,e, 21-10- 1974 as no date of change of possession was mentioned in the mutation. Admittedly, the sale in this case took place on 21-10-1974, the day on which the mutation was attested. None of the witnesses has stated that the possession was taken at the time of entry of mutation on 28-3-1974 (Exh.B1). It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge of the High Court which is in the following terms:- "Exh.P.1 does not mention the change of possession of the land under the sale recorded therein.
There is also no date or material to suggest that the possession of the land was delivered to the vendee under the sale before attestation of the mutation. In the absence of any evidence to that effect the limitation to enforce right of pre-emption arises on the date the suit was barred by time is misconceived. The appellant has miserably failed to establish on record that he has superior right of pre-emption on account of being tenant of the suit-land prior to the sale. On the other hand, the entries of pedigree-table Exh.P.2 show that the respondents are collaterals of the vendor, therefore, entitled to pre-empt the sale."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
5. Resultantly, this has no merit, which is accordingly, dismissed and .