| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 382 1989 SLD 382 1989 SCMR 34 1989 SLD 938 1989 SCMR 34 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1980, decision dated: 23rd October, 1988
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, CJ, SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JAVID IQBAL, USMAN ALI SHAH AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1980, decision dated: 23rd October, 1988
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, CJ, SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JAVID IQBAL, USMAN ALI SHAH AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD
VS
Mst. HASHMAT SULTANA
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption--Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether High Court was justified in upsetting concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts with regard to pre-empted 'transaction being an exchange and not sale. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- ---S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction--Finding of fact when not to be immune from interference--Where decision on facts was based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or was so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom, such finding would not be immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction. Gul Muhammad v. Tota Ram AIR 1915 Lah. 218; Prabhu Dial and another v. Shadi Ram and another AIR 1919 Lah. 246; Nathu Mal v. Har Dial and others 1900 Punj. Record No. 97; N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras PLD 1949 P C 26; Pir Walayat Shah v. Muhammad Shad and another 1968 SCMR 1304; Ata Muhammad Khan v. Mst. Khanzadi 1976 SCMR 104; Gul Muhammad Khan v. Khan Ahmad Shah Punjab Records No. 29 of 1893 .and Kanwal Nain v. Fateh Khan PLD 1983 SC 53 ref. (c) Pleadings- --Where vendee/defendant in pleading claimed no more than a specified amount as value of land, on no principle of pleadings or adjudication Courts could hold that value of same was more than that amount. Nathu Mal v. Har Dial and others (Punjab Records, No. 97 of 1900); Gul Muhammad Khan v. Khan Ahmad Shah P.R. 29 of 1893 and Prabhu Dial and another v. Shadi Ram and and her AIR 1919 Lah. 246 ref. (d) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ---S. 4--Right of pre-emption--Determination of--Two transactions of sale, one in favour of vendee and the other in favour of vendor merged into one of exchange by Courts below--Both transactions distinct as per evidence of parties, in point of time, in consideration and in antecedent attending circumstances--Only common feature was that said mutations were attested on the same date and place which might happen in respect of all pending mutations of same village or circle-Findings of Courts below treating such mutations as one of exchange was perverse--Right of…
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