Talb-e-Ishhad

2023 YLRN 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 13Talb-e-IshhadStandard of proofPostman, production of

Postman must be produced for establishing Talb-e-Ishhad as he could provide information whether the notice of pre-emption ever reached the vendee or even whether the respondent had refused to receive the same.

2021 YLR 803 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13(3)Suit for pre-emptionTalb-e-IshhadSeparate notice to each vendee (defendant) not sentPostman not produced as witnessEffect

Petitioners/plaintiffs challenged registered deed whereby two vendees(defendants) had purchased the property, but they had not sent separate notices, through registered post with Acknowledgment-Due (AD) cards, as required in terms of S.13(3) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987

One of the respondents had categorically denied receiving any notice in the written-statement whereas one of witnesses of the petitioners had admitted the said fact in the cross-examination

When receipt of notices was denied by the defendant then production of postman as petitioners' witness was sine qua non

Sending notice through registered post without Acknowledgment Due (AD) could not be construed to have met the requirement of S.13(3) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987

Revision petition was dismissed.

2021 CLC 637 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.13Suit for pre-emptionTalb-e-IshhadScope and proof

When the defendant had categorically stated that no Talb-e-Ishhad was made, then the plaintiff was legally required to prove that not only the notice ( of Talb-e-Ishhad ) was scribed but the same was served upon the respondent/vendee also

Postman was, admittedly, not produced in the present case and record clerk post office was produced who adduced that neither he booked the registered letter nor delivered the same

Another witness produced by the plaintiff as the record keeper stated in his evidence that he was appointed as peon in the post office who neither received registered letter/notice nor delivered the same

"Acknowledgment Due" card, placed on file, bore a signature on its overleaf, however, the document/sale-deed, by virtue of which the property was purchased by the respondent/vendee, bore his thumb-impression

Special attorney of respondent got the sale-deed exhibited in his evidence but regarding signature and thumb-impression no question was put to him (special attorney)

Suit was rightly dismissed.

2013 SCMR 721 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Suit for pre-emptionTalb-e-IshhadService of noticeCo-vendees of suit property (who were also real brothers)Pre-emptor serving notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on one of the vendees onlyService of notice not personally effected on the other vendeePlea of pre-emptor that service on one of the vendees should be presumed to be service on both vendeesValiditySuch service of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was not service in the eyes of law

Pre-emptor had not established that service of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on the other vendee was made through registered post with acknowledgement due

Plea raised by pre-emptor was not backed by any law, and therefore was not tenable.

2013 YLR 1638 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Talb-e-IshhadNotice of Talb-e-Ishhad was sent to defendant through registered postRecord Clerk of Post Office did not support the plaintiffAcknowledgment-Card did not bear the name and address of the person to whom it was sentRecord Clerk had neither booked the same nor delivered it and he could not say as to what was there in the envelope

Plaintiff had not performed and proved the talb according to law in circumstances.

2013 CLC 1488 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Talb-e-IshhadProof

Plaintiff claimed that he performed Talb-e-Ishhad in the presence of witnesses by sending a notice under registered acknowledgment-due cover to the defendant/appellant

Plaintiff failed to mention the names of the witnesses in the plaint in whose presence he allegedly performed Talb-e-Ishhad

Date of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad had also not been mentioned in the plaint

Talb-e-Ishhad was not performed in accordance with law

Appellate court seriously erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff

Judgment and decree was not sustainable under the law.

2013 YLR 2016 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 13Talbs, performance ofTalb-e-IshhadTalb-e-Muwathibat

Plaintiffs filed pre-emption suit which was decreed by the Trial Court but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Statements of parties to the transaction were recorded on 19-8-1998, the receipt of the sale price was admitted by the seller, the possession was transferred and attestation of mutation was a formality

Sale for the purpose of pre-emption was complete on 19-8-1998 and the pronouncement of right of pre-emption before the attestation of mutation and sending notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was not defective

Notice of Talb-e-Ishhad sent to the vendee had not been proved to have been served or refused, as the postman as well as postal clerk had not been produced to testify the same

Receipt of acknowledgment-due as well as original notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which contained report that the addressee was not available and his 'Lawahiqeen' had refused to accept the same, was not proved on the record as the same had been produced in the statement of counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners

Plaintiffs-petitioners had failed to prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with law which were pre-requisite for filing suit for pre-emption

Both the Talbs had not been pleaded and proved in accordance with law

No case for interference by the High Court had been made out

Revision being devoid of any substance was dismissed.