MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ABDUL GHANI (deceased) through legal heirs and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The respondent had successfully obtained a decree for pre-emption regarding a land sale, claiming a superior right as the first paternal cousin of the vendor. The petitioner contested the suit, alleging that the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption by declining to purchase the land when offered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had sufficiently established the plea of waiver. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to plead the particulars of the alleged waiver in the written statement, and the subsequent testimony regarding the waiver appeared to be an afterthought or improvement. The Court held that the lower courts had correctly appraised the evidence, finding no proof of waiver and confirming the respondent's superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, the Court found no misreading or non-reading of evidence, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Can a plea of waiver of pre-emption be sustained when the particulars of such waiver were not pleaded in the written statement?
- Does the failure to plead specific facts regarding waiver in a written statement preclude a party from later relying on testimony to establish that waiver?
- Is a first paternal cousin entitled to a superior right of pre-emption over land sold by a vendor?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- A suit filed by the respondent to preempt the sale of land in dispute through Mutation No,1595 sanctioned on 29-3-1979 for a consideration of Rs,30,000 was decreed by the trial Court through judgment, dated 21-10-1985. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Judge, Multan, against which civil revision filed by him before the High Court has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 3-7-2000 against which leave is sought.
2. The right of pre-emption was claimed by the respondent being collateral of the vendor i.e, first paternal cousin. It was contested on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit as he had waived his right of pre-emption. No particulars were given about the fact, which according to the petitioner, constituted waiver. However, when Muhammad Younas vendor appeared as D.W.1 stated that before sale was made by him, he had himself offered the respondent-plaintiff to purchase the land who declined to do so due to paucity of funds. The petitioner while appearing as D.W.2 stated that bargain was struck through the respondent- plaintiff but he declined to purchase the land. As has already been observed these necessary facts were not stated in the written statement of the petitioner and it appears that improvement was made to justify grounds of waiver by the vendor and the petitioner himself also.
3. All the three Courts below on proper and elaborate appraisal of evidence have recorded concurrent findings of facts that waiver of right of pre-emption in this case had not been proved.
The respondent was admittedly the first paternal cousin of the vendor, therefore, it was rightly held that he had superior right of pre-emption. These findings do not suffer from misreading or non- reading of any material piece of evidence on record to justify interference by this Court.
' For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.