Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLD 3165 = 1980 CLC 1096
Peshawar High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 52 of 1979, decided on 19th December 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Khurshid Khan, J

NOWSHERWAN KHAN---Appellant

VERSUS

SHER LAMIN AND 2 OTHERS---Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 100-Question of fact --Held: Court of first appeal competent to enter into and decide question whether findings of facts by lower Court erroneous or not--Court of second appeal, however, not competent to entertain such questions and second appeal lies only on one or other of grounds 5p.cified in S. 100.-[Question of fact). (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 100--Erroneous finding of fact--Different from an error or defect in procedure-No error or defect in procedure, finding of first appellate Court on question of fact, held, final if such Court had before it evidence proper for its consideration in support of finding-Mere fact of High Court having upon evidence placed before Court of first appeal, come to a different conclusion, however, no ground for second appeal.-[Question of fact].                                                                                                                                  ORDER Sher Zamin son of Musafir, purchased one kanal, 13 marlas of land specified in the plaint by a sale deed dated the 15th February, 1977, for an ostensible sum of Rs. 8300. Nowsherwan Khan plaintiff - appellant pre-empted the sale on the ground of his being a co-sharer in the property sold as well as being an owner of contiguous property. The vendee resisted the plaintiff's clam on various grounds, one of them being that the transaction was not pre-emptible by virtue of section 5 (c) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he having purchased the land for the construction of a house as he bad neither a house nor a vacant site in the village where the land sold was situate and of which he was a resident. This contention found favour with the Civil Judge who dismissed the suit with costs, ride judgment and decree dated 23rd…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register