MALIK GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 Others vs MAULA BAKHSH AND 3
These four petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the pre-emptor/plaintiff, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, against the judgment of the High Court accepting four civil revision petitions and setting aside the decrees passed in his favour. The core legal questions involved whether an improvement in a vendee-defendant's status after the institution of a pre-emption suit affects the pre-emptor's right under Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was competent. The Supreme Court observed that an improvement of status prior to the filing of a pre-emption suit successfully defeats a pre-emptor's claim with an inferior right, whereas an improvement made after the suit's institution is barred by Section 21-A. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider the pre-emptor's claim against the respondent who improved his status after the institution of the suit, while holding that a new plea challenging the competency of the revision petitions under Section 115 CPC could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.
- Does an improvement in a vendee's status made after the institution of a pre-emption suit affect the pre-emptor's right of pre-emption under Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the competency of a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged in the High Court?
- Section 21-A, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The facts giving rise to the above noted 4 petitions (all filed by Malik Ghulam Muhammad Khan) are, briefly, that one Faqir Muhammad sold Mukarardari rights in agricultural land to the petitioner and two others through six different transactionsMutations (Nos.
6281 to 6286) relating to these sales were attested on 6-3-1971. Malik Ghulam Muhammad (petitioner), however, filed six separate suits to pre-empt the said sales on the ground that he was a co-Mukarrardar alongwith Faqir Muhammad vendor, whereas the six vendees did not possess this qualification. The suits were contested by the vendees, inter alia on the ground that they had improved their status subsequently by acquiring proprietary rights in the village by purchasing the land in question from the Government. All the suits were, however, decreed by the learned trial Court on 22-2-1971. On appeal the learned District Judge, modified the decree and judgments of the trial Court holding that the petitioner was entitled to have successfully pre--empted the same to the extent of Mukarrardari rights. Against this four civil revisions were filed by the respondents in the High Court, all of which were accepted vide the impugned judgment dated 19-11-1975, whereby the decree and judgment of the Courts below were set aside.
Feeling aggrieved Malik Ghulam Muhammad (pre-emptor/plaintiff) has filed the present petitions.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner adverted our attention to section 21-A of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913, and submitted that any improvement (otherwise than through inheritance or succession) made in the status of a vendee-defendant after the institution of the suit for pre- emption shall not affect the right of the pre-emptor. He, however, admitted that I the status was improved by the vendee before the filing of the suit he can successfully defeat the pre-emption suit filed by a person having an inferior right. He also admitted that all the respondents, except Nur Muhammad, had improved their status by becoming owner in the village on 19-8-1971, he. Before the filing of the suit by Malik Ghulam Muhammad. As such the are not hit by the provisions of section 21-A. But Nur Muhammad, respondent (in CPSLA .No. 90/76) improved his status on 7-8- 1972, i.e. After filing of the suit. The petitioner's counsel, therefore, pressed his case on this ground against Nur Muhammad respondent alone.
3. He also submitted that the revision petitions filed by the respondent beforethe High Court under section 115, C. P. C. Were not competent inas--much as the value of the subject matter was more than Rs. 2,000, and in terms of section 102, C. P. C. Only R. S. As. Could have been filed by them. This plea was not urged before the High Court and he cannot be permitted to press this point at this stage.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500 with permission to file additional documents.