ALLAH BAKHSH and another vs FALAK SHER
The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed civil revisions and upheld the decreeing of pre-emption suits by the Additional District Judge. The respondent-plaintiff had filed suits for pre-emption through possession, which were initially dismissed by the Civil Judge but later accepted by the First Appellate Court. The core legal question revolved around the factual determination of 'Talab' (demand) in pre-emption suits and whether the lower courts' findings contained any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court found that the question of fact regarding 'Talab' had been successfully established by the respondent, with both the Additional District Judge and the High Court providing cogent reasons for their verdict. The Court held that the plea regarding unsubstantiated 'Talb-i-Ishhad' was without force, noting that the petitioners' refusal to receive a registered letter did not invalidate the demand, especially given that both parties resided in the same village and knew each other. Minor discrepancies in time for 'Talab' were deemed not to impede the pre-emptor. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, as no legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading in the impugned judgment was found.
- Can a pre-emption suit be decreed if the Talab (demand) is successfully established by the plaintiff?
- Does refusal to receive a registered letter for Talb-i-Ishhad invalidate the demand in a pre-emption suit?
- Do minor discrepancies in the time of making Talab impede a pre-emptor's claim?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding Talab in pre-emption suits without a demonstrated legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence?
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 12-5-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the civil revisions and maintained the earlier determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, decreeing the suits for pre-emption through possession filed by the respondent.
2 .Facts briefly are that the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption through possession of land measuring 130 Kanals on 28-9-1993, 5-7-1994 and 31-7-1994 respectively. The petitioners- defendants controverted the stance whereupon out of contradictory pleadings, issues were framed and the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mankera, vide hisjudgment, dated 3-1-1996 dismissed the suits. The respondent preferred appeals which were accepted by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment, dated 20-6-2001, decreeing the suits filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioners filed revision petitions which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 12-5-2003. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with these petitions. We have noticed that a question of fact regarding making of Talab has been successfully brought on record by the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, both of them have given cogent reasons in returning this verdict.
4. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Talb-i-Ishhad was not substantiated, is devoid of any force. The registered letter could not be served as it has come on record that the petitioners-defendants refused to receive the same. Even otherwise, it is reflected from the documents that both the parties are residents of the same village and they know each other. The minor discrepancy of time as agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not come into the way of the pre-emptor. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity, misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petitions being devoid of any force are hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.
Cited by 6 cases
- Aslam Parvez (deceased) through legal heirs vs Javed Akhtar & others 2021 LHC 2146, 2022 CLC 1628
- Muhammad Ishaq vs Sahib Zada and 9 others 2021 CLC 483, 2020 PHC 330
- NADIR HUSSAIN vs YAR MUHAMMAD and 10 others 2016 MLD 873
- AHMED RAZA THAHEEM and 3 others vs GHULAM MOHIUDDIN and 6 others 2014 CLC 1615
- MUNTAZIR vs QALAR KHAN And Other 2006 CLC 647
- MUNTAZIR vs QALAR KHAN etc. 2006 PLJ Peshawar 99