Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1419

SAWAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF And 2 Others vs MAKHMOOL And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1419
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 943/L of 1990
Date1991-04-02
Judge(s)ShafiurRahman, Actg. CJ., and Muhammad Afzal Lone
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption matter. The petitioners, three brothers, purchased the disputed property on 26-7-1974, and a pre-emption suit was subsequently instituted against them on 24-7-1975. Two of the brothers, who had no right to compete with the pre-emptor, transferred their interest to the third brother who had an equal right, attempting to avoid the pre-emption claim. The core legal question concerned the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to a resale in favour of a co-vendee with a superior right, and the divisibility of a sale where shares are specified but money is not apportioned. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to pre-emption claims, and a resale to a person with a superior right must occur within the period of limitation; once the right is lost by lapse of time, the resale cannot be in recognition of that right. Furthermore, where a share is specified but the money is not apportioned in respect of each share, the sale remains indivisible. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to pre-emption claims when a vendee transfers interest to a co-vendee?
  • Within what timeframe must a resale be made to a person having a superior right of pre-emption to avoid the effect of lis pendens?
  • Can a sale be considered divisible where the share is specified but the money is not apportioned in respect of each share?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 21-A, Pre-emption Act
pre-emptionlis pendenssuperior right of pre-emptiondivisibility of salelimitation periodleave to appeal

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ACTG. C.J.---The petitioners who are the vendees in a pre-emption claim, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 18-11-1990 whereby their Regular Second Appeal was dismissed.

2. The petitioners who are three brothers purchased the disputed property on 26-7-1974. Of these, one of the brothers had equal right with the pre-emptor but the others had not. The pre-emption suit was instituted on 24-7-1975. The two brothers who had no right to compete with the pre- emptor transferred their interest in favour of the brother who had such a right on 24-1-1976. They wanted to avoid the pre-emptive claim on the ground that section 21-A of the Pre--emption Act had not been extended to Bahawalpur and was no bar to their claim and that doctrine of lis pendens did not apply to pre-emption claims. This plea did not succeed.

3. The doctrine of lis pendens applies to pre-emption claims except in one situation where the sale by the vendee is to one who has a superior right of pre-emption. This exception to the rule of lis pendens finds recognition in many cases including Bakhshan and others v. Haji and others (PLD 1954 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 48) and Mst. Fateh Bibi v. Ahmad Khan and 6 others (PLD 1971 Lah. 171). A person can be said to have a superior right of pre-emption in recognition of which a sale can be made to him only within the period of limitation when such right can be exercised. If the right is lost by lapse of time, then the sale to such a person could not be in recognition of his superior right of pre-emption but would be as bad as to a stranger. On that principle the resale by the two vendees would not stand in the way of the pre-emptive claim of the respondents.

4. As regards the divisibility of the sale in favour of the petitioners, an authoritative decision has already been given by this Court that where the share is specified but the money is not apportioned in respect of each share, the sale remains intact and cannot be held to be divisible.

5. No case is made out for our interference and leave to appeal is refused.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.