SULTAN MUHAMMAD AHD 3 Other vs NAWAB KHAN AND Another
This regular second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the disputed land was purchased by four co-vendees, three of whom were tenants of the land while the fourth was a stranger. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of sinker applied to defeat the pre-emptive rights of the tenant-purchasers due to their association with a stranger in a joint sale. The appellants contended that the sale was divisible because the land purchased by the stranger was separately demarcated in the sale deed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the sale price was mentioned as a lump sum and there was no indication of how the stranger shared the price, the sale was indivisible. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that where the individual share of the sale price paid by a co-vendee cannot be ascertained from the sale deed, the sale is indivisible, and the tenant-purchasers lose their preferential status by associating with a stranger under the doctrine of sinker.
- Does the doctrine of sinker apply to defeat the rights of tenant-purchasers who associate with a stranger in a joint land purchase?
- Can a sale deed be considered divisible for pre-emption purposes if the land shares are specified but the sale price is paid in a lump sum without indicating individual contributions?
- Whether the association of a stranger as a co-vendee in an indivisible sale deprives the tenant-purchasers of their preferential pre-emptive status?
The only question involved in this regular second appeal is with regard to the application of.
Doctrine of sinker to the pre-emption suit giving rise to this appeal. The land involved in the suit was purchased by four persons, namely, Sultan Muhammad, Ahmed. Khan, Muhammad Khan and Saadat Khan. Out of them Sultan Muhammad, Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Khan were held to be the tenants of the disputed land but this qualification was not possessed by Saadat Khan. He was found to be a stranger. By applying the doctrine of sinker, therefore, the suit was decreed against all of them.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the sale in dispute was divisible and, therefore, the suit could succeed only to the extent of the land purchased by Saadat Khan.. In this connection, he invited my attention to the sale deed in which the land purchased by Saadat Khan has been separately shown. Threre is, however, nothing in the sale deed indicating as to how Saadat Khan had shared the sale price which has been mentioned in lump sum. The land purchased by Saadat Khan cannot be separated from that of his co-vendees as his precise share in the sale price is not known. The sale in the instant case is, therefore, not divisible. As a result, the vendee who have been found to be tenants would be hit by the doctrine of sinker du to their having associated with them a stranger. -
3. In this view of the matter, this appeal fails. It is dismissed in lim ine.
Cited by 5 cases
- Muhammd Bakhash and 2 others vs Inayat Bi and 13 others 2021 YLR 1562
- KHADIM HUSSAIN and another vs MUHAMMAD IDREES and 4 others 2000 CLC 1482
- KHADIM HUSSAIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD IDREES And Other K.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 254
- KHADIM HUSSAIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD IDREES And Other K.L.R. 2001 Revenue Cases 99
- ALLAH BAKI IS11 and others vs QAISER ABBAS and others 1992 CLC 1357