Summary: [1) To prove Talb-i-Muwathibat, the chain of the source of information as to the fact of sale, from the very first person who has the direct knowledge thereof and passes on the same to the person who lastly informs the pre-emptor, must be complete. (2) The assertion of a pre-emptor as to having come to know of the sale of the land on a particular date and making of Talb-i-Muwathibat on that date, being his personal and private act, cannot ordinarily be contradicted by the vendee through direct evidence; he can rebut such assertion, mostly by circumstantial evidence] The case originated from a suit filed by Irfan Ullah Khan, referred to as the respondent, seeking possession of a piece of land through his rightH22 of pre-emption. The respondent claimed that as a co-owner in the khewat of the land, he had a superior right of pre-emption over the petitioner, Farid Ullah Khan. The petitioner denied these claims in his written statement, leading to a trial in the lower courts. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondent, decreeing the suit in his favor. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal, but it was dismissed by the appellate court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Peshawar High Court. In light of the dismissals by the lower courts, the petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon careful examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court identified several legal lapses and inconsistencies. Firstly, the respondent's delay in making the Talb-i-Muwathibat after obtaining knowledge of the sale of the land weakened his claim. Additionally, the reliance on hearsay evidence and the failure to provide direct witnesses who had knowledge of the sale further undermined the respondent's case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of pre-emption is of a feeble nature and can be extinguished if the Talbs are not made in accordance with the law. As the primary Talb-i-Muwathibat was not proven, the court determined that the subsequent Talb-i-Ishhad and other requirements for enforcing the right of pre-emption could not be upheld. While the general rule is that the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, the court acknowledged that exceptions exist. In this case, the misdirection and legal lapses committed by the lower courts warranted the Supreme Court's involvement to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. The court found that the respondent failed to prove the essential elements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad as required by law. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.This judgment served as a reminder of the importance of presenting reliable evidence and adhering to legal procedures in pre-emption cases. It also reinforces the Supreme Court's authority to review lower court decisions when substantial errors or miscarriages of justice are apparent.

Summary: [1) To prove Talb-i-Muwathibat, the chain of the source of information as to the fact of sale, from the very first person who has the direct knowledge thereof and passes on the same to the person who lastly informs the pre-emptor, must be complete. (2) The assertion of a pre-emptor as to having come to know of the sale of the land on a particular date and making of Talb-i-Muwathibat on that date, being his personal and private act, cannot ordinarily be contradicted by the vendee through direct evidence; he can rebut such assertion, mostly by circumstantial evidence] The case originated from a suit filed by Irfan Ullah Khan, referred to as the respondent, seeking possession of a piece of land through his rightH22 of pre-emption. The respondent claimed that as a co-owner in the khewat of the land, he had a superior right of pre-emption over the petitioner, Farid Ullah Khan. The petitioner denied these claims in his written statement, leading to a trial in the lower courts. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondent, decreeing the suit in his favor. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal, but it was dismissed by the appellate court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Peshawar High Court. In light of the dismissals by the lower courts, the petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon careful examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court identified several legal lapses and inconsistencies. Firstly, the respondent's delay in making the Talb-i-Muwathibat after obtaining knowledge of the sale of the land weakened his claim. Additionally, the reliance on hearsay evidence and the failure to provide direct witnesses who had knowledge of the sale further undermined the respondent's case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of pre-emption is of a feeble nature and can be extinguished if the Talbs are not made in accordance with the law. As the primary Talb-i-Muwathibat was not proven, the court determined that the subsequent Talb-i-Ishhad and other requirements for enforcing the right of pre-emption could not be upheld. While the general rule is that the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, the court acknowledged that exceptions exist. In this case, the misdirection and legal lapses committed by the lower courts warranted the Supreme Court's involvement to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. The court found that the respondent failed to prove the essential elements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad as required by law. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.This judgment served as a reminder of the importance of presenting reliable evidence and adhering to legal procedures in pre-emption cases. It also reinforces the Supreme Court's authority to review lower court decisions when substantial errors or miscarriages of justice are apparent.

Summary: [Powers under Section 115, C.P.C. in order to exercise, superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities] Suit for Possession/Pre-Emption: The land was sold to the respondent, through a mutation. The petitioner, claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on his ownership of adjacent land and a common water source.The petitioner initially filed a suit to assert his right of pre-emption. The courts found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of pre-emption. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, the trial court and appellate court comprehensively examined the facts and properly applied the relevant law. The petitioner's claims were refuted based on the lack of official canal/irrigation, absence of joint ownership, and the failure to fulfil the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad. The Lahore High Court, in line with previous judgments, emphasised the need for proper service of notice and dismissed the petitioner's revision application. Supreme Court upheld the judgment by the LHC.

Summary: The appellant contested the respondent's claim for pre-emption of a land sale transaction. The respondent asserted that he had a superior right to pre-empt the sale of land, as he was a co-sharer in the khata, had easement rights, and was the owner of adjacent property.The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit, finding that he failed to prove the performance of Talab-e-Ishhad (right of pre-emption notice) and denied any receipt of such notice. The respondent's subsequent appeal was also dismissed, but the revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Peshawar High Court, leading to the appeal in question.The key points raised by the appellant were twofold: firstly, that the respondent failed to prove his right of pre-emption at the time of the land sale, and secondly, that the respondent did not prove the service or refusal to accept the Talab-e-Ishhad notice sent to the appellant.The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and legal aspects of the case. The Court noted that while the trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondent on the issue of Talab-e-Ishhad, the appellant (defendant) did not file a cross-appeal or cross-objection against this finding during the appeal process. The Court established that if no part of the decree was against the appellant, the appellant had the right to challenge findings without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection.The Court further scrutinized the findings related to Talab-e-Ishhad and pre-emption. It was emphasized that the respondent failed to prove the performance of Talab-e-Ishhad in accordance with the law, as he did not produce the necessary evidence to establish the service or refusal of the notice.Additionally, the Court found that the evidence presented by the respondent regarding his alleged co-ownership in the disputed khata was insufficient to establish his right of pre-emption. The Court concluded that the respondent had not proven his right of pre-emption at the time of the sale or filing of the suit.As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court, and reversed the findings related to the right of pre-emption and Talab-e-Ishhad. The appellant's argument that the respondent had not proven these aspects was upheld by the Court.

Summary: Issues:Whether the appellant fulfilled the requirements for pre-emption, specifically proving the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad.The impact of discrepancies in the dates mentioned for gaining knowledge of the sale on the credibility and success of the appellant's claim.The validity of the trial and first appellate court's findings in light of the appellant's failure to correct the misstated dates during the trial.----Holding:The Supreme Court found that the appellant did not fulfill the necessary requirements for a pre-emption suit, as he failed to prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad adequately.Discrepancies in the dates mentioned by the appellant and witnesses regarding the knowledge of the sale were significant, affecting the credibility of the appellant's claim. The appellant's failure to correct these dates during the trial was deemed a critical error.The trial and first appellate court's findings were overturned by the revisional court, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court due to the aforementioned failures and discrepancies.----Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the revisional court's judgment that set aside the decrees from the lower courts in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the procedural and evidentiary requirements in pre-emption suits, particularly the need to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad accurately and beyond doubt.

Summary: [1. The right of pre-emtion is a right to acquire by purchase an immovable property in preference to other persons by reasons of such right. Sale means permanent transfer of the ownership of an immovable property in exchange for a valuable consideration and includes transfer of an immovable property by way of hiba-bil-iwaz or hiba-bi-shart al-iwaz but in line with one of the exceptions provided therein, it does not include a transfer of an immovable property through inheritance or will or gift, other than hiba-bil-iwaz or hiba-bi-shart al-iwaz.2. If the suit for pre-emption is decreed by court of law, the pre-emptor stands in the shoes of the vendee and takes the property subject to all existing equities. The doctrine of Pre-emption or right of ?shufaa? is originated by Muslim Law which is based on human desire to avoid inconvenience and disturbance which is likely to be caused by the introduction of a stranger into the land.3. The persons in whom the right of pre-emption vest are put on view under Section 6 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 i.e. Shafi-Sharik (person who is a co-owner in the corpus of the undivided immovable property sold with other person or persons); Shafi-Khalit (participator in the special rights attached to the immovable property sold, such as right of passage, right of passage of water or right of irrigation) and Shafi-Jar (person who has a right of pre-emption because of owning an immovable property adjacent to the immovable property sold).4. The prerequisites or preconditions for demand of pre-emption in are laid down under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 in the order of ?Talb-i-Muwathibat? (immediate demand by a preemptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption); ?Talb-i-Ishhad? (demand by evidence establishing evidence); ?Talab-e-Khusumat? (demand by filing a suit).5. Under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. According to the illustrations highlighted for resonating the presumption, Illustration (g) is quite relevant which illuminates ?that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be un-favourable to the person who withholds it?. Adverse inference for non-production of evidence is one of the strongest presumptions known to law and the law allows it against the party who withholds the evidence]

Summary: Pre-emption suit is not maintainable in respect of exchange of agricultural land and the ostensible exchange transaction should not be dis-believed unless it Is established positively that the same was in fact a sale transaction.----Farooq Ahmad, the petitioner, contested judgments from the trial and appellate courts dismissing his suit for possession through pre-emption against Rashid Ahmad and others. The petitioner claimed that respondents No.9 to 11, the owners of the property in question, had transferred it to respondents No.1 to 8 through a transaction disguised as an exchange to circumvent pre-emption rights. The court deliberated on whether the transaction was indeed an exchange, which would not be subject to pre-emption rights, or a sale. It cited relevant legal precedents and the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, which defines pre-emption rights and specifies that they only apply to sales of immovable property, excluding exchanges of agricultural land. Muhammad Taj vs. Ali Akhtar (2012 C.L.C 853): This case supports the interpretation of the law regarding the definition of "sale" and "exchange" in property transactions, likely relevant to pre-emption rights. Muhammad Hayat vs. Sikandar Abbas (2007 C.L.C 961): This precedent likely provides insights into legal principles concerning property transactions and pre-emption rights, as applicable to the case. Muhammad Anwar vs. Bashir Ahmad and another (2014 C.L.C 1819): This case likely offers guidance on legal matters related to property transactions and pre-emption rights, aiding the court's decision-making process. These legal precedents were cited to bolster the court's understanding and application of the law in determining the nature of the property transaction under dispute and the validity of the pre-emption claim. The burden of proof lay with the petitioner to demonstrate that the transaction was a sale, not an exchange. However, the evidence presented by the petitioner was deemed insufficient. Despite the petitioner's claims, there was no concrete evidence regarding the nature of the transaction, such as payment details or witnesses to the sale. Furthermore, the court noted that even if the transaction were deemed a sale, the petitioner failed to fulfill the requirements of 'Talbs' under section 13(2) of the Act, which allows pre-emptors to exercise their rights upon learning of a sale. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner's claims, citing concurrent findings by the trial and appellate courts. It emphasized that interference by the High Court would only be warranted in cases of misreading or non-reading of evidence, which was not the case here. Consequently, the revision petition was deemed meritless and dismissed, with no costs imposed on either party.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which was dismissed on 20.01.2020. The petitioner initially filed a suit for possession based on the right of prior purchase regarding a piece of land. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint, but the application was rejected by the Civil Judge. The petitioner’s revision petition to the District Judge was also dismissed, leading to the filing of a writ petition in the High Court, which was again dismissed. ----Issues: 1- Whether there is a limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings. 2- Whether the amendment sought by the petitioner, which pertains to a question of Sharia, could be raised before the Civil Court. 3- Whether the pre-emption law amendments affected the maintainability of the suit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court acknowledged that there is no limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court held that the amendments sought were of a purely legal nature and could be allowed even without a formal amendment. The Court recognized that the amendments in pre-emption law, requiring specific procedures (Talb-i-muwathibat, Talb-i-ishhad, and Talb-i-khusumat), were mandatory for the maintainability of the suit, and incorporating these grounds after the prescribed period was not permissible. The Supreme Court found that the questions raised in the petition were of first impression and required disposal in a regular appeal. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted, directing the petitioner to deposit a security fee within ten days.

Summary: Background:Manzoor Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, filed a pre-emption suit seeking to pre-empt the sale of land.The trial court dismissed the suit due to material contradictions in the plaintiff's witnesses' testimony.On appeal, the district court reversed the decision and decreed the suit.The respondent (purchaser) challenged this decision in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.The High Court allowed the respondent's revision petition, dismissing the pre-emption suit again.---Issues:Whether the plaintiff adequately established the delivery or receipt of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice to the respondent.Whether the acknowledgment receipt and other documents provided by the plaintiff's counsel were admissible evidence.Whether the High Court's decision to dismiss the pre-emption suit was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The appellants argued that the acknowledgment receipt (exhibit P4) served as proof of delivery, but the respondent denied receiving the notice.The court emphasized the necessity of establishing delivery through the testimony of the postman, citing previous cases.The acknowledgment receipt could not be considered an admitted document since the respondent denied receipt of the notice.The court noted that documents presented by counsel must adhere to the rules of evidence, including producing original documents or certified copies.Failure to comply with evidence rules may lead to complications and adverse orders.The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.---Citations/Precedents:Bashir Ahmed v Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762)Allah Ditta v Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866)Basharat Ali Khan v Muhammad Akbar (2017 SCMR 309)Sultan v Noor Asghar (2020 SCMR 682)

Summary: Background:Mst. Kalsoom Begum, the appellant/plaintiff, claimed to be a co-sharer in contiguity with concomitant rights over a piece of land. She successfully pre-empted the sale of the land through legal proceedings. However, the judgment was later set aside by the High Court, leading to the appeal.---Issues:Whether the appellant had a superior right as a co-sharer in the estate.Whether the appellant satisfactorily performed Talabs (notices) in accordance with the law.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant indeed had a superior right as a co-sharer in the estate, supported by a court decree dating back to 1976. The delay in the incorporation of the decree did not diminish its validity. The absence of the postman who delivered notices was not fatal to the case, as the appellant produced official witnesses from the post office, satisfying the legal requirements for notice delivery. Regarding discrepancies in witness statements, the Court deemed them minor and not significant enough to invalidate the appellant's claim. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the Appellate Court were restored.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Lehrasab Khan Vs. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338)Saadat Pervaz Sayan Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1277)Muhammad Munir Vs. Muhammad Saleem (2004 SCMR 1530)Arshad Khan Vs. Mst. Resham Jan (2005 SCMR 1859)Mst. Janntan and others Vs. Mst. Taggi through LRs (PLD 2006 S.C. 322)Muhammad Ishaq Vs. Muhammad Shafiq (2007 SCMR 1773)Haji Muhammad Anwar Vs. Muhammad Ahmed (2007 SCMR 1961)Abdul Rasheed through LRs Vs. Manzoor Ahmad (PLD 2007 SC 287)Mst. Suban Vs. Allah Ditta (2007 SCMR 635)Liaqat Ali and others Vs. Safdar Khan (2020 SCMR 863)Section 26 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, (Act VI), 1956