TIKKA KHAN and 5 others vs ABDULLAH KHAN and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The dispute arose over the sale of land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas, which was purchased by the petitioners and subsequently challenged by two separate pre-emptors: the vendor's sister and a residuary of the vendor. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Abdullah Khan, possessed a superior right of pre-emption compared to the vendees. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly determined the matter based on the evidence presented. The Court affirmed that the respondent, being a residuary of the vendor, held a nearer degree of relationship to the vendor than the vendees, thereby establishing a superior right of pre-emption. The Court found no question of law requiring further consideration and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-emption rights are determined by the proximity of the relationship to the vendor in accordance with established law.
- Does a residuary of a vendor possess a superior right of pre-emption compared to a vendee?
- Are concurrent findings of lower courts in a pre-emption suit subject to interference by the Supreme Court where no question of law is raised?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 31-1-1987, passed in Civil Revision No,502-D of 1986. The learned Single Judge by the aforesaid order, maintained the order dated 17-11-1986 of the Additional District Judge, passed in appeal filed by the petitioners against order of the Civil Judge, in favour of the respondent No,1 in a pre-emption suit for possession of the suit land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas with share of Shamilat and well, situate at Mauza Mangot, owned by one Fateh Din. Tikka Khan petitioner and others purchased the suit land for Rs, 55,000 vide registered sale- deed dated 5-3-1978. This sale was pre-empted by two different pre-emptors in two separate suits. One by Mst. Karim Jan, real sister of Fateh Din vendor and the other by Abdullah Khan, a residuary, respondent No,1 herein. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Judge and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent No,1. Thereafter, the petitioners went in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jhelum, who vide his order dated 17-11-1986 dismissed the appeal. A civil revision of the petitioners before the High Court was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal before us.
2. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we feel, that admittedly petitioners are collateral of the vendees in two rival pre-emption suits brought by Mst. Karim Jan, the real sister of Fateh Din vendor and Abdullah Khan respondent No,1 the residuary of the vendor. The right of Mst.
3. Karim Jan pre-emptor is at par with that of the vendees. As far as respondent No,1 Abdullah Khan is concerned, he is at nearer degree in relation to the vendor as compared to vendees, therefore, he has rightly been declared by the courts below to have a superior .Right of pre-emption.
4. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the judgments of the Courts below are properly based on appreciation, of evidence on record. No question of law is raised in the petition which may require consideration by this Court. Thus finding no force in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly and I leave to appeal is refused.
5. ' Leave to .