Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 168 1976 SLD 168 1976 SCMR 104
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 21-R of 1975, decision dated: 9th October 1975
SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
D.M. Arbey, Advocate for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent

ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN

VS

Mst. KHANZADA-

Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre-emption Act ( I of 1913) ---- Ss. 6, 15 & 21 - Transaction contested to be one of exchange and not of sale - Question involved primarily a question of fact- District Judge and High Court concurrently finding transaction to be one of sale--- No misreading of relevant evidence discovered - All circumstances noticed by High Court directly relevant to question in issue-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J.--This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 11th of February 1975 in a second appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit instituted by the respondent Mst. Khanzadi against the petitioner in respect of an area of agricultural land situate in Mauzia Fazilpur in district Dora Ghazi Khan. The suit was contested by the vendee on the ground that the transac­tion was one of exchange and not of sale. This plea found favour with the trial Court, which accordingly dismissed the suit on 23-7-1959. This finding was, however, reversed in first appeal by the learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, by his judgment dated the 20th of April 1960 holding that the surrounding circumstances of the transaction clearly showed that it was a sale and not an exchange. This judgment and decree of the learned District Judge has been upheld in second appeal by the High Court, although for somewhat different reasons. The High Court has itself gone through the relevant evidence and come to the conclusion that the transaction was indeed a sale and, therefore, pre-emptible. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the High Court has misread the relevant evidence in coming to the conclusion that the transaction amounted to a sale. In support of this submission the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the various reasons given by the High Court and has endeavoured to argue that the reasons are not sustainable on the record. We regret we are not at all impressed by the submissions made by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492