1980 PLP 680 (SCMR)
KHALILUR REHMAN-Petitioner Versus SHAKOOR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 680 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 199 - Writ jurisdiction --- Transaction whether sale or exchange-A question of fact-High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere with such question in absence of misreading of evidence and existence of question of law.-Question of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALILUR REHMAN-Petitioner Versus SHAKOOR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 199 - Writ jurisdiction --- Transaction whether sale or exchange-A question of fact-High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere with such question in absence of misreading of evidence and existence of question of law.-Question of fact. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 680 (SCMR) (KHALILUR REHMAN-Petitioner Versus SHAKOOR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mohammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1980.
- Ch. Mohammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-5-1974 of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No. 21/74). -- Art. 199 - Writ jurisdiction
Transaction whether sale or exchange-A question of fact-High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere with such question in absence of misreading of evidence and existence of question of law.-[Question of fact].
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mohammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1980. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 transferred 3 kanals and 19 marlas of agricultural land to Abdul Ghafoor and Ghulam Haider, respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4, describing this transaction to be an exchange with their land measuring 5 kanals, 14 marlas. The petitioner contending that this transaction was in reality a sale, but disguised as an exchange, brought a suit for possession for the above‑mentioned 3 kanals, 19 marlas of land claiming superior right of pre‑emption. This suit was resisted by Abdul Ghafoor and Ghulam Haider, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, acid the main issue was whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the petitioner holding that the transaction in dispute was, in fact, a sale and that the petitioner had a superior right to pre‑emption. This finding was challenged by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in an appeal before the District Judge on the ground that the transaction in dispute was not a sale and in fact, was an exchange. The learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 3rd January, 1974 reversed the findings of the trial Judge holding that the transaction was, in fact. a exchange and not a sale and the decree and judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The petitioner preferred a second appeal in the High Court (R. S. A. No. 21 of 1974), which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated 16th May, 1974 on the reasoning that since the question as to whether the transaction was a sale or exchange was decided on the basis of the evidence on record which evidence had not been misread and since no other question of law has been raised the appeal was not competent. The question whether the transaction was, in fact, a sale or a exchange is, a question of fact and the learned District Judge has after careful consideration of all the relevant facts to the conclusion that the transaction was, indeed, an exchange. This is a finding of fact and the High Court rightly did not interfere with it in the absence of any misreading of the evidence and the existence of any question of law. No ground for interference by this Court, therefore, arises in the present proceedings. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.