MUHAMMAD SADIQ and another vs JALAL KHAN and others
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit dismissed by the trial Court, decreed by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently restored in its dismissal by the High Court upon second appeal. The core legal question considered by the courts was whether the original vendees had sold the disputed land to a subsequent purchaser prior to the institution of the pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court in the affirmative regarding the prior sale was unexceptionable and declined to interfere. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a pre-emption suit fails against a subsequent vendee when the transfer occurred before the institution of the suit and the pre-emptors are on an equal footing with said subsequent vendee.
- Whether a pre-emption suit can succeed against a subsequent vendee when the pre-emptor is on an equal footing with him?
- Does a pre-emption suit fail if the original vendees sold the land to a third party prior to the institution of the suit?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. It was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat. In second appeal by the vendees, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District.Judge and restored those of the trial Court.
2. The land in dispute was purchased by Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir. Subsequently, they sold it to Muhammad Rafique.
' Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq flied a suit for pre-emption with reference to the sale made in favour of Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir. Although they possessed a superior right vis- a-vis Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir but so far as Muhammad Rafique was concerned, they were on equal footing with him.
3. The only question for consideration before the Courts was whether Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir had sold the land to Muhammad Rafique prior to the institution of the suit. The finding of the High Court is in the affirmative and we do not see any reason to interfere with it. This petition is accordingly dismissed.