MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs KALA KHAN Represented by his Legal
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the pre-emption decree granted in favour of the respondent, Kala Khan, on the ground of his cultivating possession as a tenant. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the statement of the respondent's attorney in cross-examination—stating the respondent was in possession as an owner—contradicted the claim of tenancy so as to disentitle him from pre-empting the sale. The Supreme Court held that upon a proper reading of the record and the attorney's statement in its true perspective, the respondent's continuous possession as a tenant since 1948 was duly established and did not contradict his stand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums that the pre-emptor established valid tenancy for pre-emption.
- Whether a statement by an attorney in cross-examination referring to possession as an owner defeats a pre-emption claim based on tenancy?
- Does continuous possession as a temporary allottee establish tenancy for the purpose of pre-emption?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The respondent Kala Khan (now deceased & represented by his Legal Representatives) successfully pre-empted the sale of land made by the landlord in favour of the petitioners on the ground of being a tenant in cultivating possession of the land in dispute.
2. It is contended that the respondent's attorney in his cross-examination had stated that Kala Khan was in possession of the land as an owner and hence he could not have pre-empted the sale. This contention was also raised before the High Court and it was found that it was established on the record that Kala Khan was in continuous possession of the land in question (since the year 1948) as a temporary allottee and that the statement of the Attorney, read in its true perspective, did not contradict the stand of the respondent that he was the tenant of the land.
3. ' We have also gone through the available record and are inclined to agree with the above view of the High Court.
4. ' No ground for interference is made out.