Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 13th June 1969, in C. R. No. 103 of 1962). Pre-emption- exchanging his agricultural land with that of B-Land received in exchange by D, in fact, at time of exchange on 29-3-56, already mortgage by B to M-Subsequently D, on 20-6-57, selling this mortgaged land, received in exchange, to its mortgage M-Contention that exchange with B by D on 29-3-56 was in fact a sale and not exchange-Held circumstance of case did not establish any collusion between D, B & M and the fact that the first transaction took place a year and 3 months earlier than the second transaction established that it was an exchange and not sale. Sabz Ali Khan v. Khair Mohammad Khan and others A I R 1922 P C 139 distinguished. Date of hearing : 24th March 1970. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a, petition for, special, leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single. Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Seat, dismissing, a second appeal. This appeal arose out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit was filed by the present petitioners for pre-empting a transaction of sale in respect of a plot of land situated in Khasra No. 3714/4 of village Seer Gharbi and a haveli situated in the abadi the said village. The pre-emptor alleged that Allah Ditta, the' respondent No., 6 herein sold the above mentioned. Bahadur Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5, for Rs. 1,700 but in order to defeat the pre-emptive right of the petitioners disguised the transaction as an exchange. The suit was resisted by the vendee who alleged that the haveli and the agricultural land had not been transferred to him in the same transaction. The haveli had been sold independently to him some time in the year 1950 and the transfer of the agricultural land was really an exchange and not a sale as would be apparent from the exchange Mutation No. 1759. The pre-emption suit regarding the haveli was, in any event, barred by limitation. The Courts below came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the transfer of the haveli also took place…