MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption, wherein the petitioners, who were the vendees, challenged the right of the respondent to maintain the suit. The core legal question before the Court was whether the respondent, acting as the pre-emptor, was estopped from bringing the suit on the grounds that he had previously declined an offer to purchase the disputed property. The petitioners sought to establish this plea of estoppel solely through oral testimony provided by the vendor, her husband, and the petitioner. However, the vendor admitted that her relationship with the respondent was strained, and the respondent was never cross-examined regarding the alleged offer to purchase the land. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently held that the oral evidence was insufficient to substantiate the plea of estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed these concurrent findings, noting that the determination was based on the appreciation of evidence, and consequently refused the prayer for leave to appeal.
- Is oral testimony alone sufficient to establish a plea of estoppel in a pre-emption suit when the respondent is not cross-examined on the alleged offer?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts based on the appreciation of evidence?
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption and the only question for consideration is whether respondent No.1, the pre-emptor, was estoppel from bringing the suit. In support of the plea of estoppel the petitioners who were the vendees averred that the property in dispute was first offered to respondent No.1 but he declined to purchase it. This averment was sought to be supported by oral testimony, alone which was provided by Mst. Aamna Bibi, her husband Chiragh Din and the petitioner. It may be mentioned that Mst. Aamna Bibi was the vendor. She was a sister of respondent No.1. She admitted at the trial that her relations with respondent No.1 were strained. When respondent No.1 appeared in the witness-box he was not questioned about the offer allegedly made to him to purchase the land.
2. The learned trial Court, the Additional District Judge and the High Court did not regard the oral testimony as sufficient to establish the plea of estoppels. We see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding recorded by these Courts which finding was essentially based on appreciation of evidence. The prayer for leave to appeal is refused.