KHAIR DIN And Others vs Ch. QUDRAT ULLAH
This matter arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners, who claimed an equal right of pre-emption. The petitioners conceded that the unity of the sale transaction could not be split and that one of the co-vendees, being a stranger, initially possessed an inferior right of pre-emption compared to the plaintiff. However, the petitioners argued that this co-vendee had acquired a co-sharer status prior to the suit's institution through a gift of land from his father, which improved the status of all co-vendees. The lower courts rejected this plea on factual grounds, finding that neither the donor nor the donee testified to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, namely declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld these findings, holding that the case was concluded by a concurrent finding of fact supported by cogent evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Whether the status of co-vendees in a pre-emption suit can be improved by a subsequent gift of land to one of the vendees if the elements of the gift are not factually proven?
- What essential elements must be established by evidence to prove a valid gift in the context of improving a pre-emptor's status?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact disbelieving a transaction of gift be disturbed by the Supreme Court when supported by cogent evidence on record?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details and stages through which this case passed, and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to state, that the petitioners claim an equal right of pre-emption against Ch. Qudrat Ullah, plaintiff /respondent whose suit against them has been decreed. It is admitted that the unity of the transaction of sale cannot be separated and as Sikandar one of the vendees was a stranger as against the pre- emptor, therefore, all the vendees from that point of view had an inferior right of pre-emption against him i.e. The plaintiff.
2. However, it was submitted that the aforesaid Sikandar had before the institution of the suit got an area of 3 Kanals and 2 Marlas by way of gift from his father whereby he became a co-sharer, therefore, the said improvement enured for the benefit of all the co-vendees to make their status in that respect equal to the plaintiff. The course below have disbelieved the plea of gift on factual plane and have given cogent reasons in support of their views. It was held that neither the donor nor the donee had appeared in the witness-box to prove the declaration of gift, the acceptance of gift and the delivery of possession there under. In this state of affairs, we feel that there is nothing to disturb the aforesaid finding of fact and nor is there involved any principle of law to take exception to the views of the relevant Courts
3. The result is that this case is concluded by a finding of fact which is fully supported by sound reasons and cogent evidence on the record. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.