ABDUR RAHIM and others vs Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners (vendees) challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order of remand. The core legal question was whether a sale transaction involving a minor vendee, which was purportedly completed before the filing of the pre-emption suit but lacked the necessary sanction from the Guardian Judge until after the suit's institution, could be treated as a completed sale to avoid the doctrine of sinker. The Supreme Court held that the transaction on behalf of the minor remained merely an agreement to sell until the Guardian Judge's sanction was obtained. Consequently, the sale could not be considered completed before the institution of the suit. The Court affirmed that such a transaction, finalized after the suit's commencement, provided no legal benefit to the vendees in defeating the pre-emption claim. The petition was dismissed as the petitioners' counsel conceded that the transaction was only an agreement to sell until the requisite judicial sanction was granted.
- Does a sale transaction involving a minor, which requires the Guardian Judge's sanction, constitute a completed sale before such sanction is obtained?
- Can a sale transaction finalized after the institution of a pre-emption suit be used to avoid the doctrine of sinker?
- Is an agreement to sell sufficient to establish a completed sale for the purpose of defeating a pre-emption claim?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees in a pre-emption matter against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby their first appeal against the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court, was dismissed.
2. ' The learned counsel stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 could defend the suit for pre-emption filed by the respondents' side but the petitioners-vendees 4 to 7 not being the owners in the estate could not do so. In order to avoid objection of sinker, the non-owners-vendees sold their part of purchased land to the other set of the vendees before the filing of the suit by the respondents' side.
3. He also stated that although the transaction about this subsequent sale was completed before the filing of the suit the mutation was attested in that behalf nearly three years after the filing of the suit because one of the vendees transferees being a minor, sanction had to be obtained from the Guardian Judge for making the sale on his behalf.
4. It has been held that the subsequent sale relied upon by the petitioners vendees side would have to be treated as of a time after the institution of the suit. It was, therefore, of no benefit to them. The learned counsel on the contrary, has contended that the sale having been completed before institution of the suit the sanction of the mutation after the institution of the suit being only a formality could not change the factum of sale.
5. It was pointed to the learned counsel that in the impugned judgment the sale on behalf of the minor vendee is mentioned as not a completed sale but only an agreement to sell. Moreover, although the document evidencing this sale has not been produced, it would be otherwise assumed that whatever language used on behalf of the minor the transaction on his behalf was to remain only as an agreement to sell till the sanction of the Guardian Judge. The learned counsel to be fair to him frankly stated that this was the position. Thereafter he did not press the petition. That being so, leave to appeal is refused and this petition is dismissed.