NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others vs SAMI KHAN
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, Sami Khan, who asserted a superior right of pre-emption based on his status as a collateral and owner in the estate. The petitioners, who were defendants, claimed they held superior rights as tenants of the disputed land. The lower courts determined that while one petitioner was a tenant, he had forfeited his superior position by joining non-tenants in the purchase. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, arguing that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court due to their claim of tenancy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mere assertion of tenancy by a defendant to defeat a pre-emption claim does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or render the matter exclusively triable by a Revenue Court. The Court affirmed that the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.
- Does a claim of tenancy by a defendant in a pre-emption suit automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in favor of the Revenue Court?
- Does a tenant who joins non-tenants in a purchase forfeit their superior right of pre-emption?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. It was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and the High Court remained unsuccessful.
2. The respondents are the legal heirs of Sami Khan. The suit was brought by Sami Khan. He based his superior right on the assertions that he was a collateral of the vendors and also an owner in the estate. The petitioners resisted the suit, alleging that they were tenants in the land in dispute and as such the right claimed by Sami Khan was not superior to that of their own. The Courts below have found that among the petitioners Nazar Muhammad alone was a tenant in the land in dispute at the time of the impugned sale; however, as he had joined non-tenants alongwith him in the sale, he had relegated himself to the position occupied by his co-vendees. This finding has not been challenged before US.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that as they were claiming to be tenants in the land in dispute, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of Sami Khan and that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. This contention is without any merit; merely because the petitioners were claiming to be tenants in the land in dispute to defeat the right of Sami Khan would not make it a case triable by the Revenue Court. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.