pre-emption claim due to failure in proving the delivery of the required notice (Talb-i-Ishhad).

pre-emption claim due to failure in proving the delivery of the required notice (Talb-i-Ishhad).

یہ مقدمہ زاہد خان وغیرہ بنام محمد احسن وغیرہ، جو 13 اکتوبر 2023 کو لاہور ہائیکورٹ (راولپنڈی بینچ) میں فیصلہ ہوا، اہم قانونی نکات پر مبنی ہے جو جائیداد کی منتقلی اور حقِ شفعہ کے متعلق ہیں۔ اس کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. فروخت کا تصور (مکان منتقلی ایکٹ، سیکشن 54):

فروخت کا مطلب جائیداد کی ملکیت کا مستقل منتقلی ہوتا ہے، جس کے عوض قیمت ادا کی جاتی ہے یا اس کا وعدہ کیا جاتا ہے۔

ایک جائز فروخت کے لیے قیمت کی ادائیگی اور قبضہ کی منتقلی ضروری ہیں۔

فروخت نامہ کی رجسٹریشن اور انتقال کی تصدیق مالیاتی مقاصد کے لیے ضروری ہوتی ہے، لیکن یہ صرف خود بخود ملکیت کی تصدیق نہیں کرتی۔

2. حقِ شفعہ (پنجاب حقِ شفعہ ایکٹ، سیکشن 5 اور 13):

مدعا علیہ (جو دعویٰ کنندہ تھا) نے حقِ شفعہ کے ذریعے قبضے کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا، جسے ٹرائل کورٹ اور نچلی اپیلٹ کورٹ نے منظور کیا۔

تاہم، مدعا علیہ نوٹس (طلبِ اشہاد) کی ترسیل کا ثبوت فراہم کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔

مدعا علیہ کی جانب سے نوٹس کی عدم پیشی اور اس کے گواہ کی غیر موجودگی کو عدالت نے اہم ثبوت چھپانے کے مترادف قرار دیا اور قانون شہادت آرٹیکل 129(g) کے تحت اس کے خلاف مفروضہ قائم کیا۔

عدالت نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں میں شواہد کی غلط خوانی کو دیکھتے ہوئے مدعا علیہ کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا اور اپیل منظور کر لی۔

pre-emption claim due to failure in proving the delivery of the required notice (Talb-i-Ishhad).

2024 M L D 396

[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J

ZAHID KHAN and others---Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD AHSAN and others---Respondents

C. R. No. 550-D of 2016, decided on 13th October, 2023.

(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---

----S. 54---Sale---Defined---Sale means transaction of any land with permanent transfer of title/ownership against payment of price in shape of money---Sale is transfer of ownership of immovable property in exchange for a price paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised---For such transaction, payment of price must be contemplated; same must be followed by delivery of possession---Mere registration of document of sale deed and attestation of mutation in favour of vendee amounts to mature title of vendee which is merely a subsequent event for fiscal purpose or to update official record.

            Black's Law Dictionary; Muhammad Khuibaib v. Ghulam Mustafa (deceased) through LRs 2020 CLC 1039 and Muhammad Nazeef Khan v. Gulbat Khan and others 2012 SCMR 235 rel.

(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)---

----Ss. 5 & 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Right of pre-emption---Talb-i-Ishhad, notice of---Proof---Withholding of evidence---Presumption---Respondent/pre-emptor filed suit for possession through pre-emption which was concurrently decreed in his favour by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Witness of respondent/pre-emptor neither stated that he was handed over any notice/letter to affect service upon petitioner/defendant nor served the same upon him---Respondent/pre-emptor failed to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad--- Non-production of acknowledgment receipt (A.D) amounted to withholding of material evidence and such flaw had grave adverse effect on the case of respondent/pre-emptor---Witness of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was also not produced by respondent/pre-emptor nor any explanation was furnished in that regard, which amounted to withholding of the best evidence and it would be legally presumed that had the witness been produced in evidence, he would have deposed unfavourably against respondent/pre-emptor and presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would go against him---Respondent/pre-emptor failed to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---Both the Courts below committed misreading and non-reading of evidence and had also failed to apply correct law which rendered such dicta as not sustainable in the eyes of law---High Court under S. 115 C.P.C, had jurisdiction to interfere in perverse concurrent judgments and decrees of two lower fora---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/pre-emptor---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

       Muhammad Hashim v. Sona Khan and 5 others 2015 CLC 223; Muhammad Mansha and another v. Muhammad Nawaz 2014 MLD 1346; Allah Ditta through LRs and others v. Muhammad Anar 2013 SCMR 866; Munawar Hussain and others v. Afaq Ahmed 2013 SCMR 721; Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Ramzan 2023 SCMR 1305; Bashir Ahmed v. Ghulam Rasool 2011 SCMR 762; Sardar Muhammad (deceased) through LRs v. Taj Muhammad (deceased) through LRs and others 2023 SCMR 1113; Hafeez Ahmad and others v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others PLD 2012 SC 400; Naseem Ahmad and another v. Air Botswana (Pty) Ltd. and 5 others 1993 SCMR 647 and Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar and others 2016 SCMR 24 rel.

       Malik Muhammad Asif and Waqas Sher Afzal for Petitioners.

       Sh. Ahsan-ud-Din and Sh. Zulfiqar Ali for Respondents.

 

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.