FATEH MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL GHAFOOR And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a vendee, had purchased land in 1970, which was subsequently pre-empted by two rival claimants on the basis of being collaterals of the vendor. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of the respondents, and the appellate courts affirmed these decisions. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the oral evidence presented to establish the relationship between the vendor and the pre-emptors was admissible and sufficient under the law, specifically regarding the requirement to express the special source of knowledge for such testimony. The petitioner contended that the pedigree tables relied upon were incomplete and failed to prove the requisite relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts' findings suffered from legal infirmities regarding the proof of collateral relationship.
- Is oral evidence regarding a relationship between a vendor and a pre-emptor admissible without the witness expressing their special source of knowledge under the Evidence Act 1872?
- Does the failure to connect pedigree tables constitute a failure to prove a collateral relationship in a pre-emption suit?
- Section 50, Evidence Act 1872
- Section 3, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Fateh Muhammad petitioner had purchased the land in dispute from one Abdul Latif vide registered sale-deed dated 21-12-1970. This sale was pre-empted by two rival pre- emptors, namely, Abdul Ghafoor and Shabbir Ahmed respondents separately, on the plea of being collaterals of the vendor. The learned trial Judge vide his consolidated judgment dated 19-2-1974 decreed the suit of Abdul Ghafoor respondent No. 1 in his favour as rival pre-emptor and also decreed the suit of Shabbir Ahmed respondent No. 2 in his favour who having withdrawn his Zar-e- Panjum got himself non-suited. The vendee/petitioner's first appeal before the District Judge failed on 20-5-1974 and thereafter his regular second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal before us.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the question while arguing his case that the oral evidence produced for establishing the relationship between the vendor and the plaintiffs without expressing their special source of knowledge in terms of section 50 of the Evidence Act were not admissible in evidence and cannot be said to have been proved under section 3 of the said Act.
3. The pedigree-table (Ex. D-3) of plaintiff/respondent No.1 Abdul Ghafoor son of Umar Din who was the son of Ismail is not connected with the pedigree-table (Ex. D-2) drawn on the inheritance mutation of Nawab Ali (father of Abdul Latif vendor) and son of Ismail. Thus these documents are incomplete and do not rove the relationship of the two and similarly, in pedigree-table excepting oral evidence of Shabbir Ahmed respondent No. 2 and rival pre-emptor proving his relation with Abdul Latif vendor is available on the record. The findings of the Courts below, according to the learned counsel, are suffering from these legal infirmities and are not sustainable in law.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that the points raised by him require further consideration. Hence leave to appeal is granted.
5. Security Rs.2,000.