1984 PLP 876 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 876 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 876 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 876 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 876 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1984,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3rd November, 1982 in C. R. No. 189 of 1982. C. M. Nos. 719 and 720‑E of 1982). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ --Art. 185(3)‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 13‑‑Courts below accepting plea of pre‑emptor on facts and finding transaction to be sale and not gift as contended by vendee and holding pre‑emptor to be entitled to decree‑No specific material which might have been misread shown but petitioner seeking to challenge right of respondent to pre empt sale‑No such argument having been raised before Courts below held, could not` be allowed to be pressed before Supreme Court Petition being without merits dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 3‑11‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Civil Revision arising out of a pre‑emption suit, was dismissed. The petitioner/vendee/defendant, had claimed the suit land to have been acquired by him by way of gift. The respondent's case was that it was in reality a sale but disguised as a gift. All the Courts below accepted the plea of the respondent/ pre‑emptor on facts and held the transaction to be a sale and held him entitled to the decree. Learned counsel argued that it was a case of no evidence on the main issue of the nature of the transaction. But on discovery of evidence in the proceedings he tried to show that it was a case of misreading of the evidence. On that point also he was unable to show any specific material which might have been misread. He then sought to challenge the right of the respondent to pre‑empt the sale but, no argument have been raised in this behalf before the Courts below, he could not press if any further. He not having been able to satisfy us on any point, this petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.