Pre-emption right

2025 SCMR 412 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42Pre-emption rightShafi JarProofSale of land from specific Khasra numberCreation of new KhewatRecord of RightsPetitioner/pre-emptor filed suit on the plea of having suit land contiguous to his land

Suit was decreed in favour of petitioner/pre-emptor by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction dismissed the suit

Validity

When a full owner of a Khewat sells a specific Khasra number part of Khewat, through sale in favour of a vendee, such vendee becomes full owner of that specific Khasra number

In next Register Haqdaran Zamin, new Khewet is created in favour of such vendee

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court, dismissing suit for pre-emption

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

2024 YLR 1454 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

First Sched. & Art. 10Pre-emption rightLimitationConcurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Suit for recovery of possession on the basis of pre-emption filed by petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently as the same was barred by limitation

Validity

Suit was filed several months after the lapse of one year period to be reckoned with reference to the date of registration of deed

Such suit was barred under Art. 10 of First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments passed by two Courts below on the point of limitation, as there was no illegality or material irregularity

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 CLC 308 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 19Pre-emption rightScopeTalb-e-Ishhad, performance of

Contention of plaintiff was that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was served upon two minor vendees (defendants) through their father and suit should have been decreed to the extent of minor defendants whereas defendants contended that only one notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was sent in the name of all the vendees

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Service of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad upon the defendants including minor vendee was disputed

Plaintiff was bound to produce postman to prove service of said notice and without his production same could not be said to have been proved

Right of pre-emption was neither transferable nor divisible and claim for pre-emption had to be made on the whole pre-emptible property

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 1615 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Pre-emption right

Plea raised by vendees was that pre-emptors did not perform required Talbs before filing of suit and pre-emptors were represented through attorney

Validity

Date, time and place of both Talbs were specifically pleaded in plaint, therefore, assertion of vendees that requisite details of Talbs were not disclosed in plaint was not correct

Plaint showed that Talbs were made in presence of witnesses, however names of witnesses were not mentioned

Fact about presence of two witnesses was proved by pre-emptors in their evidence, as attorney had disclosed their names in his evidence which remained unrebutted and those two witnesses were also produced who corroborated evidence of attorney, which too remained unrebutted

Trial Court discussed entire evidence and had given exhaustive findings on each and every issue after full application of mind

Lower Appellate Court also gave full detailed reason in its judgment for agreeing with Trial Court

Findings of both the Courts below were in accordance with evidence on record and were based on proper appreciation of evidence

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.