HAJI MUHAMMAD vs ALLAH YAR and another
The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption regarding the sale of land, claiming a superior right as a co-sharer under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the lower Appellate Court reversed this decision, relying on an 'Iqramama' (agreement) which indicated the petitioner had acted as an agent in the transaction, received a commission, and explicitly undertook not to file a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having admitted his signature on the agreement and received consideration for his role in the sale, was barred from exercising his right of pre-emption. The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, holding that the petitioner’s involvement in the transaction, his receipt of commission, and his written undertaking constituted waiver and estoppel. The court affirmed that a party who actively facilitates a sale and accepts consideration for doing so cannot subsequently retract that position to assert a right of pre-emption, as this conduct attracts the principles of estoppel under the law of evidence.
- Does an agreement where a pre-emptor acts as an agent and receives commission for a sale transaction constitute waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Can a party be estopped from filing a pre-emption suit if they have previously signed an undertaking not to do so?
- Does the admission of a signature on a document regarding a sale transaction establish knowledge and waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991
- Section 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act 1882
- Article 114, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption against sale of land measuring 12 Kanals located in Chak No,3/H, Tehsil and District Multan owned by Said Khan who sold it to respondents vide Mutation No,234 dated 29-1-1991 for a sale price Rs,1,00,000 agitating superior right of pre-emption, being co-sharer, by making Talbs under section 13 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991, the suit was decreed on 23-12-2002 by Senior Civil Judge, Multan.
2. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Multan which was allowed on 22-5-1996, hence the present petition by the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings on Issues Nos.1, 3 and 5 were illegally reversed by the lower Appellate Court relying on Exh.D.1 (Iqramama dated 7-4-1987).
According to the learned counsel, the sale was completed on 21-9-1991 and the purported document relates to 7-8-1987, therefore, its effect cannot non-suit the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and submitted that P.W.2 Haji Muhammad admitted his signatures on Exh.D.1 which proves for intents and purpose the transaction. He also adverted to section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 pleading estoppel and waiver and also section 54 of Transfer of Property Act to fortify his arguments. He relied on PLD 2001 Lah. 194 titled Ch. Abdul Majeed v. Ch. Inayat All and 4 others and 1991 SCMR 2001 titled Ghulam Jilani and 3 others v. Ghulam Muhammad and 7 others.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.
6. The only point which has been argued before me relates to Exh.D.1, its interpretation and the effect of admission of P.W.2 qua his signatures on this document. This document is on record, it has been further sanctified by the admission of D.W.2 Haji Muhammad, the present petitioner by accepting his signature, according to the contents of this document his knowledge of transaction is clearly established and also that he had received Rs,2,000 as commission, giving undertaking that would not file suit for pre-emption. It thus, reflects that the petitioner was instrumental in the sale transaction, had acted as agent, received consideration of Rs,2,000 for services. This tantamounts to estoppel and waiver, under Article 114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, therefore, he cannot retract from his position now. The lower Appellate Court has arrived at a just decision after considering the evidence on record and interpreting the legal provisions correctly, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment, this petition has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- Machal-Ud-Din And Other vs Mst. Roshan Bibi And Other K.L.R. 2012 Civil Cases 102
- Haji IBRAHIM and others vs HABIB BANK LTD. and others 2008 PLD Karachi 361
- Haji Ibrahim and others vs Habib Bank Limited others 2009 C.L.R. 229