GUL MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
This is a vendees' petition arising from a pre-emption matter concerning the sale of land by one Allah Ditta to the petitioners. The respondent, who is the vendor's son, filed a suit for pre-emption, which was initially dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of waiver. However, the Additional District Judge accepted the pre-emptor's appeal and decreed the suit, and the High Court upheld this decision in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower appellate court had misread the evidence regarding the respondent's knowledge and waiver of his right of pre-emption, and whether the High Court failed to examine the record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, holding that it was a fit case for leave as the High Court failed to examine the record in the face of allegations of misreading of evidence.
- Whether the son of a vendor can be presumed to have knowledge of a proposed sale by his father for the purpose of establishing waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Does a failure by the High Court to call for and examine the record in revision when misreading of evidence is alleged warrant the grant of leave by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This is the vendees' petition in a pre-emption matter.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that one Allah Ditta sold land in question to Gul Muhammad etc. Vendees (petitioners herein). But before the last day of the limitation Muhammad Ramzan (respondent herein) who is the son of Allah Ditta vendor, filed a suit to pre-empt the sale.
3. The vendees contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground of waiver by Muhammad Ramzan (respondent) of his right to pre-empt the land. The trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit. The pre-emptor filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who accepted the same and decreed the suit. The petitioners then went up to the High Court in revision which upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge.
Hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the vendees (petitioners) had produced witnesses who deposed about the circum--stances which led to the inevitable inference that Muhammad Ramzan had, all along, full knowledge about the proposed sale of the land by his father Allah Ditta and that by his conduct in not coming forward to by the land at that the, he must be deemed to have waived and relinquished his right to pre-empt the sale. He urged that the fact that Muhammad Ramzan, pre-emptor, is the son of the vendor is by itself, sufficient to lead one to the above noted inference because the son can reasonably be presumed, in the circumstances of this case, to know about the sale of the land by his father even if no witness has been produced to prove the respondent's knowledge.
5. The counsel submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence on the record, while the learned High Court Judge had not even called for the record. As such it is evident that he could not have applied his mind to the petitioners contention that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence on the record while upsetting the decision of the learned trial Judge.
6. After carefully considering the matter we feel that this is a fit case for grant of leave to examine whether learned Additional District Judge had not misread the evidence which the High Court failed to examine. Leave is, therefore, granted for the above noted purpose.
Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 as cost of printing.
To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
Cited by 1 case
- IMRAN ASHRAF Versus THE STATE 2001 SCMR 424