Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 118 , 123 , 100

  Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ---- S& 118 & 123 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100 --- Second appeal--The crucial question, whether or not there was an exchange of property between parties was essentially one of fact --- No doubt two Courts below differed in their assessment of evidence, but mere fact that opposite view could as well be adopted, would not call for interference in second appeal. Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Nahid Shagufta and 3 others P L D 1990 Lah. 467 and World Trade Corporation v. Export Promotion Bureau and others 1989 S C M R 1183 ref. Transfer, of Property Act (IV of 1882) --- ---- Ss.118 & 123 --- Exchange --- Validity of --- Transaction of exchange of property was entered into between parties orally and unregistered memorandum of exchange which only contained a recital that parties had verbally agreed to exchange in question, did not create rights or interests in itself --- Transaction of oral exchange having been made long before 30-12-1974 at time when provisions of Ss.54, 59, 107 & 123 Act (IV of 1882) were not applicable to Province of Punjab and exchange could have been made even orally, recital made thereabout in memorandum of exchange did not call for compulsory registration. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ---- Ss. 118 & 123 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100 --- Second appeal--Appreciation of evidence made by lower Appellate Court, not appearing to be arbitrary so as to call for interference in second appeal, Regular Second Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others P L D 1983 SC 53 ref. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan and Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Appellant. Jari Ullah Khan and Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991. JUDGMENT This R.S.A. arises from the judgment and decree dated 14-1-1969 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Lyalipur (as it then was), whereby the respondents plaintiffs' first appeal was allowed. The respondents' claim in their suit was that the land in question was transferred to them by the respondents' predecessor Ali in exchange dated 19-4 1950 for their land…