1989 PLP 1064 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MIRAN BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1064 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MIRAN BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1064 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1064 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1064 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MIRAN BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Mahmudul Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, passed on 2‑2‑1983 in Civil Revision No.449/D of 1982). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑‑Suit for pre‑emption in respect of a transaction of gift with the assertion that same was in fact a sale‑‑Trial Court decreed such suit but First Appellate Court reversed the finding‑‑High Court in .revision restored decree of Trial Court‑‑Case for interfering with judgment of High Court not made out by petitioner‑‑First Appellate Court omitted to note that alleged donor was in no way connected with the vendees, had a large family of his own to support and was owner of a very small holding‑‑Such circumstances had an important bearing on the main issue of transaction before High Court‑‑High Court thus was justified in interfering with the finding of First Appellate Court‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondents filed a suit for pre‑emption in respect of a transaction of gift with the assertion that it was in fact a sale. The trial Court accepted their assertion and decreed the suit. On appeal by the petitioners the District Judge came to a contrary conclusion and held that the transaction was a gift and therefore not pre‑imputable; accordingly, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. The respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge re‑examined the evidence, set aside the finding of the learned District Judge And upheld that of the trial Court. Accordingly, he restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the question whether the transaction was one of gift or sale was one of fact and the High Court was not competent to interfere with the finding of the District Judge in revisional jurisdiction.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we do not think that a case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court has been made out. The learned District Judge omitted to note that the alleged donor was in no way connected with the petitioners, had a large family of his own to support and was owner of a very small holding. These circumstances had an important bearing on the main issue before the Court. The High Court was therefore justified in interfering with the finding of the learned District Judge. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. A.A../M‑783/S Leave refused.