ALI MUHAMMAD and otherss vs ABDUL HAMEED and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular First Appeal against a trial court decision in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners had sought to pre-empt the sale of land by the owner to the respondent, claiming a superior right as co-sharers in the Khata and common easements. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners failed to prove a superior right of pre-emption and failed to establish that the mandatory Talbs were performed in accordance with the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The High Court affirmed these concurrent findings on merits, concluding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners were unable to demonstrate any illegality, misreading of evidence, or non-reading of material evidence in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, maintaining that the petitioners failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for exercising the right of pre-emption.
- Does a failure to perform the requisite Talbs under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 invalidate a pre-emption claim?
- Must a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit prove a superior right of pre-emption to succeed?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts absent evidence of misreading or non-reading?
- Section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, This petition is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-10-1999 whereby R.F.A. No,79 of 1996 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The petitioners before us pre-empted the sale of the suit-land made by its owner Muhammad Ramzan to Abdul Hameed respondent through a registered sale-deed dated 13-2-1990 on the ground that they were co-sharers in the Khata and co-sharers in the common easements. The learned trial Court dismissed this suit through its judgment dated 8-2-1995 on the ground that the pre-emptors had failed to prove their superior right of pre-emption and further that they had not even established the Talbs having been made in terms of the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The petitioners questioned the said judgment before the learned District Judge which appeal was returned to the petitioners on the ground that the same was competent only before the High Court and it was thereafter that the petitioners impugned the original judgment and decree before the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court through the above- mentioned R.F.A. No,79 of 1996.
3. The Honourable High Court condoned the delay in the, filing of appeal but dismissed the said appeal on merits after holding that the petitioners did not have a superior right of pre-emption nor had they been able to establish the making of the requisite Talbs. As a result thereof the Honourable High Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on the said issues.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any illegality in the concurrent findings of the two competent Courts. It could not be shown that the conclusions reached by the two learned Courts were based either on misreading of evidence or on non-reading of any material available on record.