Ahmad Bakhsh (Deceased) through LRs vs Ameer Ali Khan
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against a sale mutation dated 14.9.1999, claiming a superior right as a co-sharer. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court reversed this decision upon finding contradictions and discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the mandatory performance of Talabs under pre-emption law. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff had validly and lawfully performed Talab-i-Ishhad and associated statutory requirements. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, holding that the testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses were fraught with material contradictions and omissions regarding the time and manner of the Talabs, rendering them unreliable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that failure to establish proper performance of Talabs fatalizes a pre-emption suit.
- Whether contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the performance of Talabs are fatal to a pre-emption suit?
- Does the failure to properly prove Talab-i-Ishhad in accordance with the law warrant the dismissal of a pre-emption claim?
- Is an appellate court justified in reversing concurrent findings of lower courts when the plaintiff's evidence on essential prerequisites is found to be unreliable?
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Ahmed Bukhsh, predecessor-in-interest, pre-empted sale through mutation dated 14.9.1999, asserting his superior right of being a co-sharer in the estate; Ameer Ali, vendee/respondent, contested the Suit, decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2000, a finding maintained by the Appellate Court, however , reversed by the High Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2013, for failure to perform Talabs in accordance with law , vires whereof are being impugned through this right appeal.
2. The High Court recapitulated plaintif f's evidence regarding performance of Talabs and found it fraught with contradictions, discrepancies and impro vements to arrive at a conclusion that Talabs were not performed in accordance with law .
3. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellants, we have examined the record. Notice (Ex.PW -5/1), purportedly issued by the plaintif f sans reference to Khalid (PW-5), a witness produced to prove Talab-i-Ishhad; he surfaced for the first time on 14.5.2009 to depose that he along with the plaintif f was present in a Baithak when Hameedullah (PW-3) disclosed the factum of sale; Hameedullah when himself examined remained silent, conspicuously omitted any such encounter with Khalid PW. Witnesses are also discrepant on other relevant details regarding time and manner , the Talabs were made; contradictions are such in nature that stance taken by one witness cannot be accepted without first excluding the others' and vice versa; the High Court has been justified to exclude their statements from consideration and, on our own independent analys is, conclusion being irresistible, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a contra view . Appeal fails. Dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Syed Qalb e Abbas vs The State and another. 2025 IHC 534
- Syed Qalb-e-Abbas Versus State 2025 PCrLJ 1611
- Late Sher Ayaz Khan @ Sheraz Khana through His L.Rs. & others vs Gul 2024 SCP 401, 2025 SCMR 380