| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1972 SLG 54 1972 SLD 54 = 1972 PLD 133 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1969, decision dated: 29th February1972. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the HighCourt of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21-11-1967, inRegular Second Appeal No. 412 of 1957/C. M. No. 6473 of1967)
SAJJAD AHMAD, WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Muhammad Anwar Bultar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid A. Buttar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record No. 1.
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 . Ex parte
Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1969, decision dated: 29th February1972. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the HighCourt of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21-11-1967, inRegular Second Appeal No. 412 of 1957/C. M. No. 6473 of1967)
SAJJAD AHMAD, WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Muhammad Anwar Bultar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid A. Buttar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record No. 1.
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 . Ex parte
BAQRI AND 4 othersvsSALMON AND 3 others
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
Section: I6
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 115
Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. IS-Suit for pre�emption-Private auction of property-Pre-emptor present at and participating unsuccessfully In private auction-Participation in auction by itself not sufficient to amount to waiver of right of pre-emption-Such pre-emptor not estopped from asserting his right of pre-emption-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115.A land was put up for private auction on two occasions and on both the occasions a person S was present and participated in the auction. S offered a bid of Rs. 28,000 but as against this B offered the highest bid of Rs. 30,000 and the land was sold to B.Subsequently S filed a suit for pre-emption on the basis of his co-ownership in the revenue estate in which the land was situated. The claim for pre-emption was resisted on the ground that since S had himself participated in the auction he was estopped from subsequently asserting his right of pre-emption.Held : Until a sale actually takes place, no person can assume to have a right of pre-emption which is not a right in property although it is a vested statutory right. The mere fact, however, that S did not outbid the highest bid of B did not show that he was no longer interested in claiming the right to pre-empt the property in dispute. The failure of a person entitled to pre�empt to outbid the purchaser does not amount to waiver. Of course there are cases in which either on account of the express refusal of the pre-emptor to purchase the property or his clear conduct which showed that he was not at all interested in the purchase of the property, Courts have held that there was a waiver. But the principles that emerge from these decisions are that;(i) Right of pre-emption arises on sale of the property in question. This is the general law.(ii) Right of pre-emption, however, can be waived before the actual sale either by express refusal to purchase the property or by a clear conduct on the part of the plaintiff, showing that he is not interested in the purchase of the property.This is consistent with the principle of foreclosure of right of pre-emption as envisaged in section 19 of the said Act.(iii) Mere participation in the auction for the sale of the…