Pre-emption | Haq Shafa The Supreme Court declared that the plaintiff could not prove the co-owner nor was the notice of summons proved. Appeal dismissed. 2024 S C M R 353

Haq Shafa
The Supreme Court declared that the plaintiff could not prove the co-owner nor was the notice of summons proved. Appeal dismissed.
2024 S C M R 353

اس کیس ہشام خان بنام وحید احمد میں سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ مدعی (وحید احمد) نے حق شفعہ کا دعویٰ کیا تھا جسے ثابت کرنے کے لیے ضروری تھا کہ وہ خود کو زمین کا شریک مالک ثابت کرے۔ مدعی کی ملکیت کا اندراج صرف خانہ کیفیت میں تھا، جبکہ رجسٹر حق داران زمین میں مالک کے خانے میں اس کا نام نہیں تھا، جس سے اس کا شریک مالکانہ حق ثابت نہیں ہوا۔ اس بنا پر عدالت نے مدعی کا حق شفعہ کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا۔

اہم نکات:

1. حق شفعہ کا ثبوت: مدعی کے پاس زمین کے شریک مالک ہونے کا کوئی مضبوط دستاویزی ثبوت نہیں تھا، کیونکہ خانہ کیفیت کا اندراج قانونی ملکیت کے طور پر نہیں مانا جاتا۔

2. نوٹس طلبِ اشہاد کا ثبوت: مدعی نے طلبِ اشہاد کا نوٹس بھجوایا تھا مگر اس کے گواہوں کے نام درخواست میں شامل نہیں کیے گئے۔ اس کے وکیل نے عدالت میں آ کر نوٹس کی تصدیق بھی نہیں کی۔

3. پتہ کا مسئلہ: نوٹس مدعا علیہ کے گاؤں کے پتے پر بھیجا گیا تھا جبکہ مدعی نے تسلیم کیا کہ مدعا علیہ بیرون ملک رہائش پذیر تھا۔

عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ مدعی نے حق شفعہ کے تقاضے پورے نہیں کیے اور اس کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا گیا۔

2024 S C M R 353

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Sardar Tariq Masood and Amin-Ud-Din Khan, JJ

HASHAM KHAN (DECEASED) through LRs.---Appellants

Versus

WAHEED AHMED---Respondent

C.As. Nos. 170 and 171 of 2017 decided on 7th June, 2023.

            (Against the judgment dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Civil Revision Nos. 688-D of 2011 and Civil Revision No. 689-D of 2011)

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

----S. 6(1)(a)---Right of pre-emption---Shafi Sharik (co-owner in suit land)---Proof---Plaintiff/pre-emptor/respondent was required to prove through documentary evidence his right of pre-emption upon the land sold in favour of the appellant/vendee/defendant---Admittedly, in column of ownership in Register Haqdaran Zameen the name of the respondent/plaintiff was mentioned in Khana Kafiyat and not in owner column in the khata wherefrom the property pre-empted was sold---Copy of Jamabandi produced for the relevant year did not contain the name of the plaintiff as co-owner in the Khata---Hence, the respondent had failed to prove his right of pre-emption on the basis of co-ownership against the appellants---Appeals were allowed and suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the plaintiff/respondent stood dismissed.

(b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---

----Ss. 52 & 42---Presumption in favour of entries in records-of-rights and periodical records---Scope---Khana Kafiyat of Register of Record of Rights---Mutation register is distinct from the record-of-rights and consequently does not benefit from the legal presumption of truthfulness commonly associated with the latter---Presumption of correctness is attached only to the column of ownership and of possession of record of right and no such presumption is attached to the column of Lagan---Same is the correct law for the entries made in Khana Kafiyat of Register of Record of Rights/Jamabadi---Khana Kafiyat of Register of Record of Rights is not covered by section 52 of the Punjab Land Revue Act, 1967---Whenever, a party relies on this Column, they will have to prove the incorporated statement/entry through independent evidence.

            Pervez Alam Khan v. Muhammad Mukhtar Khan 2001 CLC 1489 ref.

            Shad Muhammad v. Khan Poor PLD 1986 SC 91 rel.

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

----S. 13(1)(b)--- Suit for pre-emption---Talb-i-Ishhad, notice of---Proof---Names of witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad notice had not been mentioned in the plaint, which was a fatal defect---Alleged notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in both the suits was allegedly by "Mr. A", Advocate on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, though the said notice contained the signatures of the plaintiff but "Mr. A", Advocate was required to prove the notice when he issued the notice on behalf of the plaintiff to the vendee---Language of the notice stated that on behalf of the plaintiff the Advocate was issuing the notice, therefore, it was required that the Advocate should have appeared before the Court in witness-box to prove the same---Furthermore the registered post was sent on a village address whereas the plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that the vendee/defendant was living in a foreign country---When appellant/ vendee appeared as his own witness and stated that real brother of the plaintiff is also working in the same foreign country and the plaintiff knows the foreign address of vendee and even his telephone number, this fact was not disputed in cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiff, which meant that it was admission on the part of the respondent-plaintiff---One of the vendors who was relative of the plaintiff, appeared as a witness and stated that he went to the plaintiff and stated he wants to sell his share in the suit property but the plaintiff refused to purchase the suit property---Plaintiff did not prove the performance of Talbs in accordance with law---Appeals were allowed and suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the plaintiff/respondent stood dismissed.

            Sh. Ahsan ud Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.

            Sardar Abdur Raziq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

            Research made by: Bibi Tayyaba Kakar, Law Clerk.

2024 S C M R 353

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.