Immediate Demand (Talb-i-Muwathibat) Must Be Strictly Proved – Supreme Court Sets Aside Pre-emption Decree (2026 SCMR 138)
 |
| 2026 scmr 138 |
حقِ شفعہ میں فوری مطالبہ کا سخت ثبوت لازمی قرار
📌 پس منظر
عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قرار دیا کہ:
📖 عدالتی اصول
🏛 حتمی فیصلہ
✔️ اپیل منظور
Must read judgement.
2026 SCMR 138
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Shahid Waheed, Musarrat Hilall and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ
ABDUL MAJEED and others-Petitioners
Versus
Haji HAQ NAWAZ-Respondent
C.PL.A. No. 1010-1 of 2014, decided on 27th October, 2025.
(On appeal against the order/judgment dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No. 1147 of 2008).
Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)---
-5.13-Pre-emption-Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand/jumping demand), execution of-The sole issue was whether the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) proved immediate declaration (Talb-i-Muwathibat) as required by law-Pre-emptor to prove execution of talhs-Onus-Doubt in execution of talhs---Effect-A Effect-Any doubt regarding proper performance of talbs must be resolved in favour of the vendee-The case concerned a parcel of land which was sold to the petitioners/vendees through a registered sale deed The respondent/plaintiff claimed a superior right of pre-emption, alleging that he had performed the required talbs (formal declarations) and stated that upon learning of the sale at 7:00 a.m. on 7 June 2001 from "UD" in the presence of another witness, he made a declaration to exercise his right-The courts below accepted his version and decreed the suit, but the Supreme Court examined whether the Talb-i-Muwathibat i.e. the immediate demand, was duly and validly performed by the respondent/plaintiff (pre-emptor) so as to sustain his right of pre-emption-Held: The onus was on the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) to substantiate his claims by producing compelling evidence that demonstrated the completion of Talb-i-Muwathibat-Statement of witness (informer) produced by plaintiff pre-emptor suggested that enough time had passed between when the witness (informer) first learnt of the sale and when he relayed this information to the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor)--Consequently, it undermined the assertion that the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) made the declaration at the stated time---This doubt created uncertainty on whether the respondent-plaintiff performed e-emptor) truly executed the Talb-i-Muwathibat as claimed-Respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) upon gaining awareness of the sale, ntion to pre-emption, merely expressed a desire to do so-This was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991-If any doubt arose regarding the execution of the talbs, the benefit of that doubt must favour the vendee-Given these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) had failed to prove the execution of Talb-i-Muwathibat-The judgments and decrees rendered by the courts below were set aside, and the suit brought forth by the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) was dismissed---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances.
Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (Through Video Link Lahore).
Nemo for Respondent.