MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs MUHAMMAD KHAN
This appeal by special leave arises from a pre-emption suit where the appellants claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on their status as collaterals of the vendor, Rahmat, a descendant of Fazal Din. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, relying solely on a pedigree-table they produced. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, finding no evidence to connect the pedigree-table to the appellants. The Lahore High Court affirmed this dismissal in second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants had sufficiently established their superior right of pre-emption through the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate courts were justified. The Court emphasized that the mere production of a document without testimony linking it to the parties involved is insufficient to prove a claim. The key principle laid down is that a party asserting a right must provide evidence that specifically connects the documentary proof to their own family lineage to satisfy the burden of proof in pre-emption cases.
- Is the mere production of a pedigree-table sufficient to establish a relationship for a pre-emption claim without evidence connecting it to the claimants?
- Can a court rely on a document in evidence if there is no testimony linking that document to the parties asserting the claim?
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated 5-7-1977 of the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but in appeal by the vendee it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. In second appeal, the High Court upheld the judgment of the Additional District Judge.
2. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants were able to establish their superior right. The sale was effected by one Rehmat who was the grandson of Fazal Din. The appellants based their right of pre-emption on the assertion that they were collaterals of Rahmat, as they too were descendants in the paternal line of Fazal Din. In paragraph No,3 of the plaint, they set down the pedigree-table showing their relationship with Rahmat. The respondent in his written statement denied that the appellants were the collaterals of Rahmat.
3. To support their claim at the trial the appellants contended themselves by merely tendering a copy of the pedigree-table. Relying entirely upon this document, the trial Court held that they had been able to prove their relationship with Rahmat and accordingly it held that the appellants had a superior right. In appeal the Additional District Judge took the view that there was no evidence to show that the said pedigree-table pertained to the appellants; accordingly, he reversed the finding of the trial Court on this controversy. In second appeal the High Court agreed with the learned Additional District Judge and affirmed his finding.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we are not persuaded that the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Additional District Judge suffer from any infirmity. There is no evidence that the pedigree table produced at the trial related to the appellants. One of the appellant appeared in the witness-box. He did not even care to claim that he and the other pre- emptors were in any way connected with Rahmat or that the pedigree-table referred to his family.
Had he made any such assertion, the respondent would have had an opportunity to cross- examine him on this point. The pedigree-table was merely tendered in evidence at the close of the appellants' evidence by the counsel. In the circumstances, the view taken by the High Court and the Additional District Judge that there was nothing on the record to show that pedigree-table brought on record pertained to the appellants, was justified. We would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.
Cited by 7 cases
- Mst. Badami and others vs Mst. Budhee and others 2022 LHC 2200
- Mst. Badami and others vs Mst. Budhee and others 2024 MLD 534
- GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN (deceased) Versus MUHAMMAD SANA ULLAH (deceased) 2016 MLD 1030
- Khalil Ahmad And 3 Other vs Muhammad Ameer K.L.R 2003 Revenue Cases 66
- Khalil Ahmad & 3 Other vs Ghulam Qasim And Other K.L.R. 2003 Revenue Cases 66
- KHALIL AHMAD And 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD AMEER 2003 YLR 608
- ALLAH YAR and 18 others vs GHULAM JILANI and 3 others 1995 PLD Lahore 409