LAL KHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had originally filed the suit claiming a right of pre-emption based on his status as a joint khatedar. Following unsuccessful appeals, the petitioner attempted to introduce a new ground for pre-emption in the High Court, asserting he was a pattidar. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit can introduce a new basis for the claim at the appellate stage without amending the plaint, and whether the petitioner successfully established his right. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly disallowed the new ground, noting the petitioner failed to amend his plaint. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that pre-emption is a piratical right, requiring strict compliance with the law. Because the petitioner failed to prove his status as a khatedar and the matter was settled by concurrent findings of fact, the petition was dismissed. The key principle established is that a pre-emptor must strictly adhere to the grounds pleaded in the plaint and cannot shift the basis of the claim during appellate proceedings without formal amendment.
- Can a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit introduce a new ground for the claim at the appellate stage without amending the plaint?
- Is a pre-emption right considered a piratical right requiring strict compliance with the law?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to dismiss a suit where the plaintiff fails to prove the specific status pleaded in the plaint?
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.----The dispute relates to Kharsa Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56 and 58 which were sold by Mst. Kaniz Ahmad to respondent Ghulam Muhammad by a registered sale deed dated the 2501 July 1961. Petitioner Lal Khan brought a suit for pre-emotion on the basis of his being joint holder in the khata. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent's first appeal before the Additional District Judge having been unsuccessful he preferred a second appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit.
2. In the High Court the petitioner for the first time raised a new ground for pre-emotion, namely, that the petitioner is a pattidar.
3. The learned Judge of the High Court rightly disallowed the petitioner from changing the basis of his claim for pre-emotion. The petitioner as has been noticed already claimed on the basis of his being a khatedar and it has been found by the Courts below that he was not a khatedar. The petitioner never amended his plaint, and even in the High Court where the new ground for pre-- emption was sought to be urged he never applied for amendment of the plaint as is evident from the judgment of the learned Single Judge itself. The right of pre-emotion being in the nature of a piratical right the Courts have always leaned against it and while allowing such a right have always insisted upon a strict compliance of the law applicable to pre-emotion.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that one must be a pattidar before he can be a khatedar and that all pattidars are not khatedars. That being so, it is not merely enough for the petitioner to prove that he was a pattidar but that he was also required to prove that he became a khatedar in order to succeed in his suit. This petitioner has failed to do.
5. It has also been contended that the counsel for the respondent had admitted that the petitioner was a joint khatedar and there--fore the respondent was bound by such admission. The learned Judge of the High Court observed that there was nothing on the record to show that any such admission was made by the counsel for the respondent.
6. The matter is concluded by concurrent findings of fact. There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- UDHA RAM vs MUHAMMAD MEHTAB and another 2014 CLC 98
- Haji NAUROZE KHAN vs Malik RAZ MUHAMMAD And 2 OTHER 2006 CLC 144
- REHMAT ALI And 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR 1997 MLD 1017
- Dr. IQBAL AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs MUHAMMAD INAYAT through Legal Heirs and another 1993 SCMR 1477