MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH And Other
The petitioner sought to challenge a pre-emption decree obtained by respondent No. 1 against respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the suit land from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 prior to the pre-emption decree, obtaining a separate consent decree for possession. However, the petitioner failed to intervene in the original pre-emption suit or disclose the alleged purchase during those proceedings. The District Judge and the High Court concurrently found that the alleged sale was not proved, characterizing the transaction as a shady attempt to deprive the pre-emption decree-holder of his rights. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, noting the suspicious conduct of the petitioner and the vendors in failing to disclose the transaction in the proper legal forum at the appropriate time. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not stall the execution of the pre-emption decree, as the alleged sale was unsubstantiated and the petitioner's conduct lacked merit. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a party who fails to intervene in a pre-emption suit subsequently stall the execution of a pre-emption decree based on an unproven, undisclosed prior purchase?
- Does the failure to disclose an alleged sale during relevant legal proceedings affect the credibility of that transaction?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-proof of a sale subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. --While Muhammad Bakhsh respondent No. 1 was involved in a pre-emption suit with respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner claimed to have purchased on the strength of a receipt the land which was the subject-matter of pre-emption suit without respondents No. 2 or 3 pleading so in the pre-emption suit or the petitioner intervening in the pre-emption suit on the basis of such purchase. He independently obtained a consent decree against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and wanted to stall the pre-emption decree obtained by Muhammad Bakhsh in the pre- emption suit. His suit for possession of the land was decreed against the three respondents but the District Judge held the sale as not proved and on appeal dismissed the suit. The learned Judge in the High Court upheld that finding.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale stood proved and should have been given effect to and the decree of pre-emption obtained by Muhammad Bakhsh respondent against the other to respondents was of no avail to him as the to respondents had already parted with their interest in the land.
3. Not only that the alleged sale has been found to be not proved by the to Courts the conduct of the petitioner as also the vendors from whom he got the land would show that they did not disclose it in proper proceedings and at the proper the. Their conduct really made the whole alleged transaction to be a shady one and directed towards depriving the decree-holder of the fruits of his pre-emption suit. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.