Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 459 = 1990 CLC 533
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.15/BWP of 1983 and Civil Revisions Nos.175-D and 245-D of 1984, decided on 16th December, 1989.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani and Muhammad Sharif, JJ
Ch. Ashraf Ali Bhatti for Appellants. M.M. Bhatti for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 2 others--Appellants

VERSUS

BARKAT ALI and 4 others--Respondents

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 4

  Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)-- ---S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96---Where the question was about the nature of transaction as to whether it was a gift or a sale, decision would depend upon scrutiny of evidence led by the parties---Survey of evidence, oral and documentary would thus be necessary, more so, when Courts of fact had differed in their conclusions. Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ---S. 4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.102---Right of pre-emption ---Nature of transaction---Determination---Court can discover true nature of transaction though it was disguised in different form by parties to it---Onus of proof that a particular transaction which looked differently than what in reality it was, is upon the pre-emptor who is not bound by its ouster from---Provisions of Qanun-e Shahadat, 1984 neither restrict nor impair the right of the pre-emptor to give .evidence for establishing true nature of transaction to show that it does not represent the real mind of the parties or contract concluded between them-- Plaintiff has unrestricted right to prove real nature of transaction by giving direct and circumstantial evidence and no fetter or embargo is placed upon jurisdiction of the Court to consider and pronounce upon the true nature and kind of transaction. Tara Chand v. Baldeo 117 PR 1890; Gul Muhammad v. Sabz Ali Khan AIR 1919 Lah. 127 and Than Singh and others v. Nandu Kirpa Jat and others AIR 1978 Punj. and Har. 94 ref. Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)-- ---S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Right of pre-emption ---Nature of transaction--Second appeal---Scope---Plaintiffs right to establish that transaction is in reality a sale---Where Courts below had arrived at a finding that a certain transaction was a sale, exchange, or gift, as the case may be, such finding of fact was not open to scrutiny in the second appeal. It is open to the plaintiff (pre-emptor) to establish that the transaction in suit is in reality a sale and not an exchange or gift and Courts can enquire into the true nature of such a transaction. Under the Evidence Act now Oanun-e-Shahadat also, there is no to lead evidence to prove certain…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register