MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others vs MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a suit for declaration of ownership regarding land originally owned by the deceased, Hayat Muhammad. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an alleged gift or, alternatively, through inheritance as collaterals, asserting that the respondent, Munir Ahmed, was not the biological son of the deceased and thus ineligible to inherit. During the appellate proceedings, the son of Munir Ahmed filed an affidavit admitting the petitioners' claim. The core legal question was whether this admission by the son of the original respondent, who had already sold the land to third-party vendees, could bind those vendees and whether the petitioners had established their claim of inheritance. The Supreme Court held that the affidavit was of no evidentiary value against the vendees, who had purchased the property for valuable consideration, and concluded it was likely collusive. The Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the suit, noting the petitioners failed to prove their case and had previously acquiesced to the mutation in favor of Munir Ahmed. The principle established is that admissions made by a predecessor-in-interest or their successors after the alienation of property are not binding on bona fide purchasers for value.
- Does an admission made by the son of a predecessor-in-interest after the property has been sold to third-party vendees bind those vendees?
- Can a statement made in collusion with petitioners by a successor-in-interest be used as evidence against bona fide purchasers for value?
- Does the failure to prove a claim of gift or inheritance in a civil suit necessitate the dismissal of a declaration of ownership?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The dispute relates to land originally owned by Hayat Muhammad, deceased. He died in 1988 and his land in dispute was mutated in favor of Munir Ahmed, his son through Mutation No,115, dated 10-3-1989. The petitioners on 3-9-1989 filed the present suit for declaration that they were owners of the land in dispute, firstly on the basis of a gift made by Hayat Muhammad in their favor and alternatively, being his collaterals, they were entitled to inherit the entire land as Hayat Muhammad did not leave any heir, for Munir Ahmed was son of Alam Bibi the wife of Hayat Muhammad from her previous husband, therefore, was not entitled to inherit his land.
2. The suit was decreed in favor of the petitioners by the trial Court through judgment, dated 2-2- 2000. Appeal was filed by the respondents who were vendees from Munir Ahmed during the pendency of the suit before the First Appellate Court during the pendency of which, Nazir Ahmed son of Munir Ahmed, filed an affidavit before the Court that he had accepted the claim of the petitioners as made out in the original plaint and had no objection if the judgment and decree passed in favor of the petitioners were maintained. He also pointed out that he did not file any appeal against the said judgment and decree. This appeal was however, accepted by the said Court through judgment dated 2-11-2002 against which revision petition filed by them has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 19-11-2002 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Nazir Ahmed son of Munir Ahmed having admitted the claim of the petitioners as made out in the plaint viz. Munir Ahmed was Pichlag of Hayat Muhammad therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. He maintained that neither the First Appellate Court nor the High Court took into consideration this affidavit and the stand taken by Nazir Ahmed son of Munir Ahmed who made statement in favor of the petitioners. He also submitted that the case of the petitioners has been considered by the High Court on the basis of mere gift and the same having been held to have not been proved, the petitioners' case on the ground of inheritance and collatership and that Munir Ahmed was Pichlag did not receive consideration.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. Since Munir Ahmed during his life-time had sold his land to private respondents therefOre, any statement or affidavit made by his son Nazir Ahmed during pendency of the appeal in favor of the petitioners was of no avail, for it can safely be concluded that it was made in collusion with the petitioners. The petitioners are relatives of Munir Ahmed, therefore, a person after selling the property if had made such a statement, the same was of no evidentiary value against the vendees, who had purchased the land for valuable consideration.
5. The case of the petitioners that Munir Ahmed was Pichlag had also not been proved. One of the petitioners at the time of attestation of mutation of inheritance in favor of Munir Ahmed appeared before the Revenue Officer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though no decree had been passed in favor of the respondents-vendees, but on the basis of impugned judgment of dismissal of suit of the petitioners, the said vendees have initiated criminal proceedings as well as obtained possession through Tehsildar against which judicial proceedings initiated by the petitioners are pending.
7. These proceedings would be prosecuted by the petitioners and decided strictly in accordance with law. So far as judgments impugned in this petition, they relate to dismissal of the suit of petitioners upheld by this Court.
8. The findings recorded by the two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .