1981 PLP 1050 (SCMR)
ELAHEE BUKSH SHAH — Petitioner Versus ALLAH BUKSH AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1050 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ELAHEE BUKSH SHAH — Petitioner Versus ALLAH BUKSH AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1050 (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 1981 PLP 1050 (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: 1981 PLP 1050 (SCMR) (ELAHEE BUKSH SHAH — Petitioner Versus ALLAH BUKSH AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th December, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 4-6-1979 in Civil Revision No. 360 of 1977).
S. 15-Suit for pre-emption-Determination of question whether trans action sale or exchange-District Judge on appeal competently believing one set of evidence against other and holding transaction to be an ex change-Order of High Court dismissing second appeal on ground that matter "whether transaction was an exchange was concluded by a finding of fact"-Held, cannot be taken exception to.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.
Facts briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a pre-emption suit against the respondents in which he asserted that Ahmad Ali, the vendor, had in fact sold the suit land, but in order to defeat petitioner's right of pre-emption, he had instead executed a deed of exchange. The trial Judge decreed the suit in petitioner's favour but on appeal at respondents' instance, the District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan reversed the findings of the Judge and allowed the appeal and in result dismissed the suit. Petitioner's Second Appeal failed in the Lahore High Court and he now seeks special leave to appeal. Mr. Muhammad Nazar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge has wrongly discarded certain pieces of evidence including the evidence of Ahmad Ali, the vendor, to the effect that be bad sold the suit land. The pivotal point for consideration is whether the transaction in question was a sale or an exchange.. The vendor Ahmad Ali no doubt stated at one stage that he had sold the land but in the cross-examination he admitted the execution of the exchange deed and also that he was given certain land as the consideration for the sale exchange. The deed of exchange was duly registered. It was within the full competence of the learned District Judge as an Appellate Court to believe one set of evidence as against the other and the High Court therefore very rightly dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that "the matter whether the transaction was an exchange is concluded by a finding of fact". On the facts of the case no exception in law can be taken with the judg ment of the High Court. The petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.