BEGUM HAMID MEHMOOD and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD MASOOD
These three petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 22-6-1994, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision petitions arising out of pre-emption suits. The petitioners had purchased agricultural land through separate sale-deeds, which the respondent pre-empted by filing suits in 1980. The petitioners contested the suits by asserting an earlier oral purchase in 1976 with contemporaneous delivery of possession, contending that the subsequent sale-deeds were merely confirmations of the prior oral sale, making the pre-emption suits time-barred. The trial court decreed the respondent's suits, and both the appellate and revisional courts dismissed the petitioners' challenges. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the lower courts misread and ignored material oral and documentary evidence regarding the delivery of possession, including an agreement deed dated 5th March 1977 and Khasra Girdawari entries, and discarded genuine proof without cogent reasons. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to consider whether the lower courts ignored material evidence and based their findings on surmises and conjectures.
- Whether a pre-emption suit is barred by time when the vendee sets up an earlier oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession?
- Can a subsequent sale-deed be treated merely as a confirmation of a prior oral sale for the purpose of limitation in pre-emption suits?
- Whether the revisional and appellate courts' dismissal of a claim ignoring material documentary and oral evidence regarding delivery of possession warrants leave to appeal?
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---These three petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 22-6-1994 passed in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 356, 357 and 358 of 1985 involving identical, factual and legal questions.
2. Petitioners in these three cases purchased agricultural land through separate sale-deeds.
Respondent asserting his superior right of pre-emption pre-empted the sale through three separate suits. Petitioners while contesting the suits stated that they had orally purchased the suit land in the year 1976 and had obtained possession under the sale on payment of sale consideration; that the possession of the land was handed over to one Sadiq son of Wali Muhammad through an agreement deed, dated 5th March, 1977 and thereafter raised construction over a portion of the suit land as such the suits filed on 55-1980 were barred by time. That the subsequent sale-deed was merely confirmation of the earlier sale as the sale consideration had already been paid at the time when oral sale took place.
3. After recording the evidence of the parties the plaintiff/respondent's suits were decreed and the petitioners/plaintiffs appeals and revisions both have been dismissed. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the learned High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record. It was contended that the Courts below have misread the evidence and have ignored the material oral and documentary evidence of delivery of possession of land under the sale and the document, dated 5th March, 1977 which was found to be genuine by comparison of thumb-impression of the executant (tenant) by the Finger Print Expert has been discarded for no cogent reasons. The Khasra Girdawari further supported the delivery of possession. That the findings are based on surmises and conjectures having no basis in the evidence. That the established principle of preponderance of evidence in deciding the civil cases has been ignored. Leave is accordingly granted to consider the above contentions.
Cited by 3 cases
- Dr. SEEMA HANIF KHAN Versus WAQAS KHAN 2026 PLD 91
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus STATE 2001 YLR 1164
- Mrs. AYESHA MOEEN and 3 others vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 2 others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 498