Right of Pre-emption Applies Only to Sale, Not to Gift.
یہ کیس حقِ خیار کے دعوے کا تھا، جس میں مدعی نے جائیداد پر اپنے حق کا دعویٰ کیا تھا، لیکن مدعا علیہ نے اسے تحفہ قرار دے کر چیلنج کیا، اور عدالت نے اس دعوے کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے تصدیق کی کہ یہ فروخت تھی۔
مقدمے کا پس منظر
یہ مقدمہ اس دعوے سے شروع ہوا کہ نواب خان نے متعلقہ جائیداد اس بنیاد پر خریدنے کی خواہش ظاہر کی کہ اسے جائیداد کی فروخت کا پہلے علم ہو گیا تھا۔ جب مدعا علیہ مسز زرشیدہ نے جائیداد منتقل کرنے سے انکار کیا تو نواب خان نے حقِ خیار کی بنیاد پر عدالت سے رجوع کیا۔
مدعا علیہ کا مؤقف
مدعا علیہ نے اپنے دفاع میں یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ جائیداد فروخت نہیں کی گئی بلکہ بھائی نے بطور تحفہ منتقل کی تھی۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ انتقال میں قیمت کا اندراج صرف ٹیکس مقاصد کے لیے کیا گیا، جبکہ حقیقت میں یہ معاملہ تحفے کا تھا، اس لیے حقِ خیار لاگو نہیں ہوتا۔
ابتدائی عدالت کا فیصلہ
ٹرائل کورٹ نے شواہد اور گواہیوں کا تفصیلی جائزہ لینے کے بعد یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ مدعا علیہ یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہی کہ جائیداد واقعی تحفے کے طور پر منتقل کی گئی تھی۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ انتقال کی نوعیت فروخت کی ہے، اس لیے نواب خان کا حقِ خیار درست طور پر استعمال ہوا ہے۔
اپیل کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ کی توثیق
اپیل کورٹ نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کی تصدیق کی اور قرار دیا کہ شواہد کی درست جانچ کی گئی ہے۔ بعد ازاں پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے بھی نظرثانی میں مداخلت سے انکار کرتے ہوئے نچلی عدالتوں کے متفقہ نتائج کو برقرار رکھا۔
سپریم کورٹ میں قانونی نکتہ
سپریم کورٹ کے سامنے بنیادی سوال یہ تھا کہ آیا یہ انتقال فروخت تھا یا تحفہ، اور آیا حقِ خیار لاگو ہو سکتا ہے یا نہیں۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ حقِ خیار صرف فروخت کی صورت میں پیدا ہوتا ہے، جبکہ بلا معاوضہ منتقلی یعنی تحفے پر اس کا اطلاق نہیں ہوتا۔
فروخت اور تحفے میں امتیاز
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر کسی انتقال کو بظاہر تحفہ ظاہر کیا جائے لیکن شواہد سے یہ ثابت ہو کہ درحقیقت معاوضہ طے ہوا تھا، تو عدالت اس انتقال کو فروخت تصور کر سکتی ہے۔ اس مقدمے میں مدعا علیہ تحفے کے دعوے کے حق میں کوئی ٹھوس شہادت پیش نہ کر سکی۔
شہادت پیش نہ کرنے کا قانونی اثر
عدالت نے اس امر پر بھی زور دیا کہ مبینہ تحفہ دینے والے اور اس کے گواہوں کو پیش نہ کرنا قانون شہادت کے تحت منفی قرینہ پیدا کرتا ہے۔ اہم شہادت روکنے کی صورت میں عدالت یہ فرض کر سکتی ہے کہ اگر وہ شہادت پیش کی جاتی تو مدعا علیہ کے خلاف جاتی۔
نظرثانی کے دائرہ اختیار کی حدود
سپریم کورٹ نے یہ اصول بھی واضح کیا کہ ہائی کورٹ نظرثانی کے اختیار میں نچلی عدالتوں کے متفقہ حقائق میں مداخلت نہیں کر سکتی، جب تک کہ شواہد کی صریح غلط تشریح، عدم مطالعہ یا دائرہ اختیار کی سنگین خلاف ورزی ثابت نہ ہو۔
سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ، اپیل کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے شواہد کے عین مطابق ہیں۔ چونکہ مدعا علیہ تحفے کا دعویٰ ثابت نہ کر سکی، اس لیے حقِ خیار درست طور پر نافذ ہوا۔ چنانچہ درخواستِ اجازتِ اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔
قانونی سبق
یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ حقِ خیار صرف فروخت کی صورت میں لاگو ہوتا ہے، اور عدالتیں انتقال کی اصل نوعیت کا تعین محض الفاظ نہیں بلکہ عملی شواہد کی بنیاد پر کرتی ہیں۔ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ یہ فیصلہ نظرثانی کے محدود دائرہ اختیار کی بھی واضح مثال ہے۔
اس کیس کی کہانی کچھ اس طرح ہے:
**کہانی:**
نواب خان نے اپنے حقِ خیار کا دعویٰ ایک جائیداد کے لیے کیا جو ایک غیر رجسٹرڈ فروخت نامہ کے ذریعے منتقل کی گئی تھی۔ نواب خان نے کہا کہ وہ جائیداد خریدنا چاہتے ہیں کیونکہ اس کی فروخت کے بارے میں انہیں پہلے علم ہوا۔ جب مدعا علیہ (مسز زرشیدہ) نے جائیداد کی منتقلی کا انکار کیا، تو نواب خان نے عدالت کا دروازہ کھٹکھٹایا۔
مدعا علیہ نے دفاع میں کہا کہ جائیداد کو فروخت نہیں بلکہ تحفے کے طور پر منتقل کیا گیا تھا۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ اس معاملے میں قیمت کی بات صرف ٹیکس کی وجہ سے درج کی گئی تھی، اور حقیقت میں منتقلی تحفے کی تھی۔
عدالتوں نے شواہد اور گواہیوں کا گہرائی سے جائزہ لیا۔ ابتدائی عدالت نے نواب خان کے حقِ خیار کا دعویٰ درست قرار دیا، کیونکہ مدعا علیہ نے یہ ثابت نہیں کیا کہ منتقلی تحفے کی تھی۔ اپیل کورٹ نے بھی اس فیصلے کی تصدیق کی، اور پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اسی مؤقف کو برقرار رکھا۔
سپریم کورٹ نے بھی نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ حقِ خیار صرف فروخت پر ہی لاگو ہوتا ہے، اور نچلی عدالتوں نے شواہد کی درست تشریح کی تھی۔ مدعا علیہ نے تحفے کی بنیاد پر معاملے کو چیلنج کیا، لیکن وہ اس دعوے کو ثابت نہیں کر سکی۔
یہ کہانی قانون کی صحیح تشریح اور اس کی حدود کے بارے میں اہم سبق سکھاتی ہے، اور بتاتی ہے کہ عدالتیں کیسے شواہد کی بنیاد پر فیصلے کرتی ہیں اور نظرثانی کی دائرہ کار کو محدود رکھتی ہیں۔
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, HACJ
MR. JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
CIVIL PETITION NO.3645 OF 2015 AND
C.M.A.NO.8716 OF 2015.
(Against the Judgment of Peshawar High Court,
Peshawar dated 26.10.2015 passed in Civil
Revision 1666/2011)
Mst. Zarsheda
… Petitioner
Versus
Nobat Khan
… Respondent
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Zia-ur-Rehman, ASC
(via video link from Peshawar)
For the Respondent : Mr. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Malik, ASC
(via video link from Peshawar)
Date of Hearing
: 14.09.2021
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J:- This Civil Petition for leave to
appeal has been brought to challenge the judgment dated
26.10.2015 passed by learned Peshawar High Court whereby, the
Civil Revision Application No.1666/2011 was dismissed.
2. The short-lived facts of the case are as under:-
The respondent had instituted a Civil suit for possession through right of preemption against the petitioner/defendant before the Civil Judge-II, Swabi on the
premise that the Suit property has been transferred through an unregistered
sale deed in lieu of Rs.88,000/- by Muhammad Ali to his sister. This sale
transaction was recorded vide mutation No.1511, dated 24.08.2007. He came to
know about the unregistered sale deed on 02.09.2007 at his house through Niaz
Muhammad S/o Haji Mohabat Khan, thereafter in presence of Bashir Ahmed,
his son, the plaintiff declared his intention to lodge right of pre-emption. On
11.9.2007, he sent notice of “Talb-i-Ishhad” for claiming his right of preemption. The defendant was approached to accept the right and deliver
possession in lieu of sale consideration but defendant paid no heed hence the
plaintiff filed a suit which was contested by the defendant/petitioner. The trial
court decreed the suit which was affirmed in the appeal and against that
judgment, the petitioner filed aforesaid Revision Application.
CP.No.3645 of 2015
-:2:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned
judgment is based on misreading of evidence. It was further
contended that the suit property was owned and possessed by the
petitioner by virtue of gift and not through sale hence no right of
pre-emption could arise. The learned High Court as well as both
the courts below failed to consider this crucial aspect which
resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. In fact the mutation was
entered and attested as a gift between the brother and sister,
however, the price of the land was fixed as Rs.88,000/- for the
purpose of taxes. The concerned Patwari with the connivance of
the plaintiff/respondent created doubt in the mutation entry. He
concluded that the respondent had no superior right of preemption who failed to fulfill requisite formalities in accordance with
law.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent fully supported the
judgment rendered by the learned high court in civil revision as
well as the judgment of the courts below. He argued that the trial
court decreed the suit on the basis of evidence and the learned
appellate court after due consideration of evidence led by the
parties rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no case of misreading
or non-reading of evidence rather it is case of concurrent finding of
the two courts below which was also affirmed in the civil revision
by the learned high court. The respondent while claiming right of
pre-emption completed all formalities religiously and also produced
the evidence but on the contrary, the petitioner miserably failed to
lead any evidence to prove that the transaction was in fact a gift
and not sale.
5. Heard the arguments. 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. Compliant with clause (d) of
Section 2 (Definitions Clause) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption
Act, 1987, ‘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
CP.No.3645 of 2015
-:3:-
provided therein, it does not include a transfer of an immovable
property through inheritance or will or gift, other than hiba-biliwaz or hiba-bi-shart al-iwaz. It is well settled exposition of law
that the right of pre-emption arises in case of sale and when such
sale is completed but does not arise in case of transfer of
immovable property without consideration such as gift. The sale is
completed when the price is paid by the purchaser to the vendor
and possession of the property is delivered by the vendor to the
vendee. 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 Preemption or right of “shufaa” is originated by Muslim Law. The
foundation of this right is in fact based on human desire to avoid
inconvenience and disturbance which is likely to be caused by the
introduction of a stranger into the land.
6. 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). The record exhibits that
the plaintiff/respondent had put forward his demand of preemption in accordance with the prerequisites or preconditions 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).
7. The language used under Section 115 of C.P.C. unambiguously
envisages that the revisional court has to examine the allegations
of jurisdictional error such as exercise of jurisdiction not vested in
CP.No.3645 of 2015
-:4:-
the court below or a jurisdiction vested in it by law was failed to
exercise and or the court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity or committed some error of
procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may
have affected the ultimate decision. Though the High Court
exercises the jurisdiction to correct the error in the case decided by
its subordinate courts but while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., the powers of the court are
limited and narrow. In the trial court Issue No.6 was settled
whether plaintiff performed necessary Talbs in accordance with the
law or not. After scrutinizing the evidence produced by the plaintiff
to prove his right of pre-emption and the fulfillment of
requirements as envisaged under Section 13, the trial court
decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff.
8. The controversy and discord in its entirety was roaming around
of an issue whether the defendant was gifted the property by her
brother Muhammad Ali and the transfer was effected through gift.
According to Section 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption
Act, 1987, it is clearly provided that the right of pre-emption shall
arise in the case of sale whereas Sub-section (2) further expounds
that nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall prevent a court
from holding that an alienation purporting to be other than sale is
in fact a sale. In paragraph 2 of the written statement, the
defendant took the plea that there was no sale transaction. It is
clearly reflecting from the judgment of the trial court that after
filing the written statement by the defendant, the learned trial
court settled the issues after scrutinizing and delved into the
pleadings of the parties. The Issue No.5 unswervingly hinged on
whether the transaction in question was a gift or sale but the trial
court reached to the conclusion that defendant miserably failed to
establish that the transaction was not sale but a gift. The gist of
evidence shows that defendant failed to establish the factum of gift.
The attorney of the defendant appeared as DW-I, who deposed that
the property was gifted by Muhammad Ali to the defendant,
however, during his cross examination, he deposed that
Muhammad Ali was present in his village but he cannot produce
any witness of the gift. Neither the alleged donor was produced or
CP.No.3645 of 2015
-:5:-
called in the court for evidence nor was the witnesses of the alleged
mutation of gift were called for evidence. Waseem Bari, Stamp
vendor, PW-3 appeared and verified that stamp paper in question
was sold by him to Muhammad Ali for agreement to sell in favour
of Mst. Zarsheda, daughter of Hayat Khan.
9. At this juncture Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order
1984 is quite relevant under which 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. Regardless of the
presence of important witnesses (the alleged donor) and the alleged
witness of the mutation, the defendant failed to produce them
despite framing of specific issue whether there was no transaction
of sale but a gift.
10. In the case of Shahbaz Gul and others vs. Muhammad Younas
Khan and others (2020 SCMR 867), this court held that where
two different interpretations were possible of the evidence brought
on record, then appraisal of facts of lower courts should not be
overturned by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under
S.115, C.P.C. Between two possible interpretations, the one
adopted by the trial and appellate courts should have been
maintained, keeping in mind the limited scope of revisional
jurisdiction. Whereas in the case of Ahmad Nawaz Khan Vs.
Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984), this court
expressed that that High Court has very limited jurisdiction to
interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts
below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. In the case
of Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board,
Rawalpindi. Vs. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others. (2014 SCMR 161), the
court held that the provisions of Section 115, C.P.C under which a
CP.No.3645 of 2015
-:6:-
High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confer an
exceptional and necessary power intended to secure effective
exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction
unhindered by technicalities. The revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact, which
do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the court. In the case
of Atiq-ur-Rehman Vs. Muhammad Amin (PLD 2006 SC 309), this
court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to
the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional
error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have
material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn
therein is perverse or contrary to the law but the interference for
the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another
view of the matter, is not possible in revisional jurisdiction. There
is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and
misappreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the
appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and
care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only
in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by
a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a
jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of
evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law. This court in
the case of Sultan Muhammad and another. Vs. Muhammad
Qasim and others. (2010 SCMR 1630 ) held that the concurrent
findings of three courts below on a question of fact, if not based on
misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any
illegality or material irregularity effecting the merits of the case are
not open to question at the revisional stage.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of
Elahi Bakhsh and others. Vs. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2014
SCMR 1217). This case was related to the exchange of land
through registered exchange deed. The court also referred to Article
103 Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 and held that oral evidence
challenging the registered document cannot dislodge the
presumption of truth attached to a registered deed. In the case in
hand there was no question of challenging any registered
document hence the above precedent is found distinguishable.
CP.No.3645 of 2015
-:7:-
12. The first appellate court re-evaluated the evidence on record
and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and the
learned high court also after reappraisal of the evidence affirmed
the concurrent conclusion arrived at by the courts below. We are of
the firm view that findings recorded by the all the courts below are
in consonance with the evidence on record, hence we do not find
any infirmity in the impugned judgment which could warrant
interference by this court. The petition is dismissed with listed
application and leave to appeal is refused.
Acting Chief Justice
Judge
Judge
Islamabad,
14.09.2021
Approved for reporting
For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp
Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.
Tags
Hiba with Sale