Hakim GHULAM HUSSAIN vs KARAMAT ALI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner, claiming superior rights as a co-sharer, successfully obtained a decree for pre-emption against the respondents (vendees). During the trial, the original vendor filed a separate declaratory suit claiming the initial sale to the respondents violated Martial Law Regulation 64, resulting in a consent decree declaring the sale void. The respondents' appeal against the pre-emption decree was dismissed by the District Court, but the High Court subsequently allowed their Regular Second Appeal and remanded the matter. The petitioner contends that because the sale was declared void by consent, the respondents lost their interest in the land and consequently lacked the locus standi to file an appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner argues the appeal was improperly constituted for failing to implead the vendor as a necessary party. The Supreme Court found these contentions arguable, raising significant questions regarding the standing of a vendee in a pre-emption suit after the sale is declared void and the necessity of impleading the vendor in appellate proceedings.
- Does a vendee retain the right to appeal a pre-emption decree if the underlying sale has been declared void by a consent decree?
- Is a vendor a necessary party in an appeal filed against a decree passed in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the failure to implead a necessary party render an appeal improperly constituted?
- Martial Law Regulation 64
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 17-10-1989, whereby, R.S.A. No, 128 of 1983 of the respondents was accepted. The respondents purchased the land in dispute from one Faiz Muhammad son of Allah Din for a sale consideration of Rs,50,000 vide mutation No,3052 attested on 30-5-1969. The petitioner on the basis of co-sharer and owner in the estate claimed his superior rights and pre-empted the said sale before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Leiah. During the pendency of the suit Faiz Muhammad vendor brought a declaratory suit claiming that the sale in favour of the vendees being violative of the M.L.R.64, was thus void. A consent decree was passed and under such circumstances Faiz Muhammad vendor was made a party to the suit. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed contesting issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit of the petitioner in his favour on 13-1-1982. Appeal and application for additional evidence of the vendees/respondents before the District Court were both dismissed on 29-6-1983. Regular Second Appeal of the respondents before the High Court was allowed on 17-10- 1989 and their case was remanded to the Addl. District Judge for disposal on its merits. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the sale in favour of the vendees/respondents was on their consent declared void, hence, they have left no interest in the suit land and thus losing their interest have no right to file an appeal before the District Judge against the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances the vendor being a necessary party and having interest in the disputed property was impleaded as defendant in the suit but the respondents failed to implead him as respondent in appeal against the decree passed in the pre-emption suit, thus the appeal, not being properly constituted, was rightly dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while ignoring this aspect of the case has wrongly allowed the second appeal. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, feel satisfied that the contention raised by him makes the case arguable which requires examination of this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.
2. Proceeding before the trial Court is stayed during the pendency of this appeal.
3. Security Rs,5,000.
4. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any.