REHMAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for pre-emption in favour of the respondent. The petitioner challenged the decree primarily on the ground of estoppel, arguing that the respondent had been informed of the petitioner's intent to purchase the land prior to the transaction and had not objected. The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented by the petitioner, noting inconsistencies between the petitioner's own testimony and that of his witnesses. Specifically, the petitioner failed to produce key witnesses mentioned in his testimony, and the evidence provided by the remaining witnesses was insufficient to establish the essential elements of estoppel. The Court held that even if the petitioner's evidence were accepted as true, it did not legally constitute estoppel against the respondent's right to pre-empt. Consequently, finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the respondent was not estopped from filing the suit for pre-emption.
- Does the mere expression of intent to purchase property by a buyer, communicated to a potential pre-emptor, constitute legal estoppel against a subsequent pre-emption suit?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---All the Courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent to pre-empt the sale in dispute made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the High Court, he pressed only the issue of estoppel and conceded the correctness of the findings recorded by the Courts below on the other issues.
2. In the written statement, the plea raised by the petitioner was that before the purchase of the land, the respondent-plaintiff was approached by him to inform him (respondent) that earlier he had purchased land in the village though he was not the owner of the estate but the present petitioner did not pre-empt the same and now the petitioner also wanted to purchase the land in the village.
3. In support of issue of estoppel, the petitioner Rehmat Ali appeared himself as D.W.1 and he also examined Sain Rehmat as D.W.2 and Sharm Singh as D.W.3. D.W.1 stated that he went to the Chamber of the respondent-plaintiff in the company of Dr. Safdar and Shaukat Ali and informed him that he wanted to purchase the property. Neither Dr. Safdar nor Shaukat Ali were examined as witnesses. In his statement, he did not state that he was also accompanied by Sain Rehmat and Sharm A Singh. Sain Rehmat when appeared as D.W.2 stated nothing to the effect that the respondent was informed about the purchase of the land by the petitioner whereas Sharm Singh merely stated that the respondent-plaintiff was informed before the purchase of the land by the petitioner who felt happy. In his statement, Sharm Singh also mentioned the name of one Lambardar who allegedly accompanied them when they approached respondent No,1 but the said Lambardar was also not examined.
4. The plea raised by the petitioner in the written statement and the evidence of D.W. 1, D W.2 and D.W.3 if read together and even if accepted as correct, the same would not in law constitute estoppel against respondent No,1, therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that respondent No,1 was not estopped from filing the suit.
5. No other ground was urged during the arguments. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed and .