MUHAMMAD IOBAL and others vs Hafiz GHULAM YASIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan, which dismissed the civil revision of the petitioners and upheld the pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondent. The core legal question involves the application of the principle of sinker where vendees with pre-emptive rights join strangers in a land purchase, thereby losing their superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly applied the principle of sinker against the petitioners because some of the vendees joined in the sale did not possess pre-emptive rights in the respective khatas, making them strangers and rendering the entire transaction vulnerable to pre-emption. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums, ruling that joining strangers in a joint sale sinks the rights of co-vendees who might otherwise have had a superior right, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Does joining strangers in a sale transaction sink the pre-emptive rights of co-vendees?
- Whether the principle of sinker is correctly applied when vendees without pre-emptive rights are included in a land mutation?
- Can co-vendees with superior pre-emption rights be deprived of those rights by associating with non-pre-emptors?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan, whereby civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Hafiz Ghulam Yasin respondent pre-empted the sale of 54 kanals 3 marlas of land situate in village Qazi Khokhar, Tehsil and District D.I. Khan in Khatas No,56/161 to 164, 56/1 and 94 on behalf of Saifullah vendor in favour of Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Imtiaz, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad, vide Mutation No,22 attested on 21-9-1978. The suit is mainly contested on the principle of sinker. It is also a fact that Saifullah vendor vide Mutation No,21 sold 21 kanals 5 marlas of land out of Khata No,56/164-165 to Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Imtiaz, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad and vide Mutation No, 23 the said Saifullah sold his entire share in Khata No,56/162-163 to Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Imtiaz. Hence vide Mutation No,21 Muhammad I Iassan is excluded from the suit khata and similarly vide Mutation No,23 Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad are not purchasers through this mutation, in the said khata. Hence it is clear that Muhammad Bakhsh has no pre-emptive right in Khata No,56 and similarly, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad do not possess preemptive rights who were joined in the sale under suit vide Mutation No,22 make themselves strangers to the owners Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Imtiaz and deprived them of their right of pre-emption. The District Judge and the High Court have rightly applied the principle of sinker against the vendees/petitioners.
3. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the principle of sinker has rightly been applied against the alleged owners who joined with them the strangers in the sale in suit. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was rightly decreed throughout in all the Courts below.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment which does not suffer from any legal defect. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.