MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs FAZAL ELAHI And Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding a pre-emption claim against him. The core legal question was whether a vendee whose share was distinctly mentioned in the sale mutation could claim protection against a pre-emption suit merely by associating with a co-vendee who held a certificate as a Mangla Dam Oustee entitled to statutory exemption. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not benefit from the exemption of his co-vendee where his own share was distinct and he possessed no superior or equal right against the pre-emptor on merits. The court established the principle that association with an exempt co-vendee in a sale transaction does not extend statutory protection to a non-exempt co-vendee whose individual share is separately identifiable.
- Whether a co-vendee without an independent exemption can benefit from the statutory protection of another co-vendee who is a Mangla Dam Oustee?
- Does the distinct specification of shares in a sale mutation prevent a non-exempt vendee from claiming the protection attached to an exempt co-vendee?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner against whom pre-emption claim has succeeded, seeks leave to appeal against, the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-4-1983 whereby the protection was not granted to him against the pre-emption claim on the strength of his co-vendee being a Mangla Dam Oustee, a certificate-holder to that effect.
2. The fact that the share of the petitioner was distinctly mentioned in the mutation of sale and he could not claim any superior or equal right on merits against the pre-emptor, is' sufficient to sustain the judgment of the High Court. Merely by associating with a person whose purchase enjoyed exemption under the law, the petitioner could not benefit. There is no merit and leave to appeal is refused.