Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 5

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. II, r. 2

(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)  S. It 5-Estoppel-Question in previous suit for pre-emption being whether property could have been sold to a person not by law given preference over present plaintiff-appellant and question whether present plaintiff was the reversioner of deceased vendor and sale was bad fn custom never raised-Question in present suit being whether plaintiff was reversioner of deceased vendor and sale was bad in custom, no case of estoppel, held, arose. Behla v. Shoo Chand and others 106 1 C 1927 held not applicable. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. II, r. 2-Suit, frame of-Provisions of O. II, r. 2-Attracted by sameness of cause of action-Cause of action in previous suit furnished by superior right of pre-emption claimed by plaintiff while cause of action in present suit based upon reversionary rights and inhibition upon transfer of ancestral property under custom- Causes of action in two suits being different, having nothing in common, no duty, held, cast on plaintiff to have prayed for both reliefs in first suit. Ziaul Haq v. Muhammad Ibrahim A I R 1920 Lab. 184 ; Inder Singh v. Kartar Singh A I R 1915 Lab. 184 ; Khairati and another v. Akko 1882 P R 108; Shuja-ud-Din v. Straj Din A I R 194 t Lab. 139 ; Muhammad Khalil Khan and others v. Mahbub Ali Mian and others P L D 1948 P C 131; Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsunnissa Begum (1867) 11 M I A 551 ; Bead v, Brown (1889) 22 Q B D 128 ; Brunsden v. Humphrey (1884) 14 Q B D 141 and Mst. Chanckour v. Pertab Singh 15 1 A 156 ref. Date of hearing : 11th June 1974.                                                                                                                  JUDGMENT A suit was filed by Muhammad Yateem for possession through pre-emption of the property in dispute. In this suit against the vendor Ghulam Nabi and the vendees Muhammad Din and Muhammad Yaqub, Feroze was a rival pre-emptor. The suit…