| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1321 2026 SLD 1321 = 2026 SCP 16 = 2026 SCMR 406 = 2026 PLJ 167 |
C.A. No. 756/L/2012 IN C.P. No. 1581/L/2011 [Against judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in R.S.A.No.107 of 2000 by Lahore High Court, Lahore]
JUSTICE SHAHID BILAL HASSAN JUSTICE SHAKEEL AHMAD
Sheikh Naveed Shehryar, ASC Sh. Usman Karim Ud Din, ASC
Jamaat Ali etc. …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Bahadur …Respondent(s)
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
Section: //
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 114
Summary
In this pre-emption dispute over 151 Kanals and 11 Marlas of agricultural land in Village Raja Jang, District Kasur, sold in 1967, the respondent (son of the vendor) filed a suit in 1968 claiming superior pre-emption rights under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The case endured multiple remands, appeals, and revisions spanning decades due to procedural issues and debates on pre-1973 amendments and the 1986 cutoff for decrees. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appellants' appeal in 2012 (judgment by Shahid Bilal Hassan-J), dismissing the suit on grounds of implied waiver by the pre-emptor, who had full knowledge of the sale, remained present during its execution and registration, yet filed the suit belatedly without objection, evidencing collusion and acquiescence.
Core Points
- Factual Background: Land sold via registered deed on 17.07.1967 for Rs. 52,800/-; pre-emptor (respondent), son of vendor, lived with him, knew of transaction stages (earnest money, execution, registration), stayed silent, and sued on the last day of limitation (13.07.1968).
- Procedural History: Trial court initially decreed for pre-emptor (1978); appeal remanded multiple times (1978, 1983, 1989); suit dismissed post-remand but appeal restored and decreed for respondent (2000); High Court dismissed RSA (2011); Supreme Court granted leave (2012).
- Key Finding on Waiver: Pre-emptor's presence, knowledge, and inaction constituted implied waiver by acquiescence/estoppel, inducing vendees to believe the sale was unchallenged; no express waiver needed—conduct suffices.
- Collusion and Bona Fides: Suit seen as collusive between vendor and son; pre-emptor must approach with clean hands; weak "piratical" right requires unimpeachable conduct.
- High Court Error: Failed to consider totality of circumstances for waiver, treating mere presence in isolation.
- Outcome and Observation: Appeal allowed; suit dismissed; courts urged to curb frivolous litigation via "limine control" after 60+ years of vexatious proceedings.
Laws, Sections, and Citations
| Law/Act | Section/Article | Key Reference/Citation | Principle Applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 | - | General right invoked by respondent as vendor's son | Superior pre-emption right; suit barred post-31.07.1986 for new decrees unless pre-existing (debated via cases) |
| Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 | Article 114 | Estoppel by declaration, act, or omission | Pre-emptor estopped by silence/inaction despite knowledge, allowing vendees to act on belief sale was final |
| - | - | Said Kamal (PLD 1986 SC 360) | No pre-emption decree after 31.07.1986 |
| - | - | Sardar Ali (PLJ 1988 SC 224) | Pre-1986 decrees governed by old law |
| - | - | Abdul Hameed v. Muzamil Haq (2005 SCMR 895) | Implied waiver from conduct: knowledge + failure to assert despite intimacy with vendor |
| - | - | Hassan Din v. Manzoor Hussain (2010 SCMR 810) | Waiver where pre-emptor lives with vendor, present at sale docs, fails to object |
| - | - | Naseer Ahmed v. Arshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 403) | Pre-emption suits by relatives often collusive; requires clean hands |
| - | - | Black's Law Dictionary | Waiver: voluntary relinquishment (express/implied) via conduct inconsistent with claiming right |
ORDER