Pakistan Case LawMOLA BAKHSH Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of agricultural land. The petitioner challenged the decree granted to the respondent, arguing that the suit was barred by the doctrine of partial pre-emption because the respondent allegedly failed to seek relief regarding the vendor's share in the Shamilat Deh and irrigation rights. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the vendor possessed no share in the Shamilat Deh nor any independent irrigation rights. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent had offered to pay the full consideration amount paid by the vendee, negating any intent to exclude portions of the property. The Court held that even if there were an omission, it was unintentional and did not constitute partial pre-emption, as the respondent sought the entire bargain. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that a suit for pre-emption is not defeated by an unintentional omission where the pre-emptor offers the full consideration for the entire property sold.
- Does an unintentional omission to include certain rights in a pre-emption suit constitute partial pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emption suit be defeated when the pre-emptor offers the full consideration paid by the vendee?
- Is a suit for pre-emption maintainable if the vendor had no actual share in the claimed rights like Shamilat Deh?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. CJ.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 9-2-1993 whereby the decree passed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar, in a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent was upheld.
2.By a registered deed dated 9-1-1980 Mst. Ghulaman sold about 67 Kanals and 9 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Behramka of Tehsil Minchanabad to the petitioner. The property sold included the vendor's share in the means of irrigation and the Shamilat Deh. On 20-11-1980 the respondent brought a suit for pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar. The petitioner's revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3.The only contention raised in support of this petition is that it was a case of partial pre-emption inasmuch as the respondent had not asked for relief in respect of the Shamilat Deh and the rights in the means of irrigation; consequently, no decree could be passed in his favour. There is no merit in this contention. The evidence indicates that the vendor had no share in the Shamilat Deh nor was there any well from which she drew water for irrigation. However, that may be, the respondent had offered to pay the entire consideration which the petitioner had paid to the vendor. There was no reason why he should have omitted to seek relief in respect of any of the rights sold by the vendor to the vendee. At the worst, it could be a case of unintentional omission which could not be equated with partial pre-emption. Leave is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments