ABDUR RASHID Versus FAYYAZ BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas in Jhelum. The land was originally sold to the petitioner, Abdur Rashid, via Mutation No. 4910 in 1973. The respondent, Mst. Fayyaz Begum, filed a suit for pre-emption, asserting a superior right of pre-emption and challenging the sale consideration. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit based on findings of mala fides and estoppel, the District Judge reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent. The Lahore High Court subsequently upheld the appellate decree. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in determining the respondent's superior right of pre-emption and the validity of the sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the appellate court and the High Court regarding the respondent's superior right. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' judgments in favor of the respondent's pre-emption claim.
- Does a niece possess a superior right of pre-emption over a stranger purchaser regarding the land of her uncle?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the appellate court and the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J .‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated the 3rd May, 1988.
2. Land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.45, 49, 50 and 109 situate at Mauza Piraghab, Tehsil and District Jhelum, belonged to Muhammad Sadiq, his brother Muhammad Azeem and his two sisters, namely, Mst. Zarina Bi and Mst. Sakina Bi. Through Mutation No.4910 attested on 2‑10‑1973 this land was sold to Abdur Rashid for a sale consideration of Rs.10,500. The sale was pre‑empted by Mst. Fayyaz Begum, daughter of Muhammad Sadiq and niece of the other vendors, on the ground of superior right of pre‑emption. The sale consideration was also disputed. The suit was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds including mala fides and estoppel. The latter two issues prevailed with the learned trial Judge who dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 8‑5‑1978. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Jhelum, vide his judgment dated 8‑6‑1980, reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondent. This decree was upheld by the High Court through the impugned judgment.
3. The learned appellate as well as the High Court have held the respondent to be clothed with superior right of pre‑emption. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the evidence and findings of the two Courts below, we are afraid that no case has been made out for our interference in the matter. The petition is dismissed.'
M.I./A‑279/S Petition dismissed.