ABDUL RASHEED vs IBRAHIM and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from interfering with his possession of land, despite a prior decree for possession through pre-emption obtained by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge the validity of the respondent's pre-emption decree after having accepted the pre-emption money and acknowledged the respondent's tenancy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the decree due to his prior conduct of accepting the pre-emption money and acknowledging the tenancy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Revenue Officers are duty-bound to update revenue records in accordance with binding civil court adjudications. Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that a party who accepts the benefits of a decree is estopped from subsequently challenging its validity or enforcement on grounds of laches.
- Is a party who has accepted pre-emption money estopped from challenging the validity of the underlying pre-emption decree?
- Are Revenue Officers legally obligated to update revenue records to conform with binding civil court adjudications?
- Can a party challenge the enforcement of a decree on the grounds of laches after having accepted the benefits of that decree?
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 18-7-1996, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Civil Revision No,361-D of 1996.
2. The brief facts are that one Abid Hussain Shah filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioner in respect of the suit land purchased by him alongwith his brother. Ibrahim, respondent No,1 herein, also filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of his tenancy in the land, which was decreed on 27-4-1990. The pre-emption money was deposited and the same was also withdrawn by the brother of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that respondent No,1 be restrained from interfering in his possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 26-5-1995. The appeal filed by him also met the same fate. The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 18-7-1996. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,1 slept over the decree passed in his favour and filed the execution application on 5-11-1992, the same was, therefore, not liable to be enforced on account of laches. The contention is devoid of any force. The learned Judge in Chambers rightly held that the pre-emption money having been received by the petitioner and tenancy accepted, he was estopped to challenge the decree dated 27-4-1980.
The learned Judge was also right in holding that the Revenue Officer was duty bound to bring the Revenue Record up-to-date in conformity with the binding adjudication of Civil Court. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and .