SAWAR vs GULFAM HUSSAIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision stemming from a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner's father had previously sold land to the respondent's father, which was subjected to a successful pre-emption suit decreed on the basis of a compromise in 1964. The petitioner asserted that a subsequent 1978 sale-deed executed in his favour by the respondent's father was not a fresh sale, but merely a document executed in confirmation of the earlier pre-emption decree. Nonetheless, the respondent filed a successful pre-emption suit regarding this transaction, leading to concurrent findings against the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the transaction sought to be pre-empted was in fact a sale and to address related questions arising from the execution and revenue records.
- Whether a subsequent document executed in confirmation of an earlier pre-emption decree constitutes a sale subject to pre-emption?
- Can a transaction framed as a sale-deed be treated as merely completing documentation for a prior pre-emption decree?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 17-10-1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Civil Revision arising out of a decree for pre-emption passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. Father of Sawar petitioner had sold 7 Kanals 12 Marlas of land to Bostan father of Gulfam respondent. The petitioner and his brother Nazar Hussain filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed on the basis of compromise in 1964. Despite payment of the decretal amount and alleged delivery of possession to the petitioner and his brother, the land continued to be shown in the revenue papers as belonging to Bostan. The petitioner's case is that although some land was shown as transferred to Nazar Hussain in pursuance to and in execution of the compromise pre- emption decree, the remaining piece of land measuring 3 Kanals 17 Marlas continued to be shown in revenue papers in the name of Bostan. It was further asserted by the petitioner that in July 1978 a document purporting to be a sale-deed was executed by Bostan in his favour showing consideration money as Rs.1,500. This document, it is the case of the petitioner, was executed only in confirmation of the earlier decree for pre-emption passed in favour of the petitioner. About the sale consideration being shown as Rs.1,500 in the deed learned counsel for the petitioner has explained, it might have been received by Bostan not as sale price but as consideration for completing the documentation. Be that as it may Gulfam Hussain respondent filed a suit for pre- emption regarding the so-called sale made by his father through the said deed. Despite the petitioner's above-stated pleadings Gulfam respondent's suit was decreed. Petitioner's appeal and revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has taken us through the record and has also cited Ali Ahmad and another v.
4. Muhammad Fazal and another PLD 1973 Lah. 207 in support of this petition.
5. After hearing him we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine the plea that the transaction sought to be pre-empted1A was in fact not sale and other related questions.
6. Order Accordingly. Security Rs.2,500.
7. Stay order passed on 31-12-1984 shall continue. Records of the earlier suit, the proceedings regarding execution of the decree and the revenue records relating to the said execution and/or the mutation regarding the alleged sale made by Bostan in 1978 in favour of Sawar shall, on furnishing particulars thereof within a month by the petitioner's Advocate-on-Record together with the records of this case, be summoned.