1994SCMR2043 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR2043 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR2043 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR2043 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR2043 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Sher Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑5‑1992 in R.S.As. Nos. 446 and 447 of 1968). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 54 & 118$‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Nature of transaction, whether sale or exchange‑‑‑Question for consideration before Courts below including the High Court yeas whether transaction in question, was one of sale or exchange‑‑‑High Court agreed with Trial Court that transaction in question, was one of exchange and not sale, thereby reversing finding of First Appellate Court to the contrary which had termed the transaction as one of sale‑‑‑Reasons given by High Court for preferring the finding of Trial Court to that of First Appellate Court being substantial leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑5‑1992 in R.S.As. Nos. 446 and 447 of 1968). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 54 & 118$‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Nature of transaction, whether sale or exchange‑‑‑Question for consideration before Courts below including the High Court yeas whether transaction in question, was one of sale or exchange‑‑‑High Court agreed with Trial Court that transaction in question, was one of exchange and not sale, thereby reversing finding of First Appellate Court to the contrary which had termed the transaction as one of sale‑‑‑Reasons given by High Court for preferring the finding of Trial Court to that of First Appellate Court being substantial leave to appeal was refused. Mian Sher Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The only question for consideration in this petition‑for special leave to appeal is whether the transaction by which Sahib Dad had transferred his land to the contesting respondents was one of sale or exchange. The learned trial Judge held that the transaction was one of exchange and on the basis of this finding he denied the relief of pre‑emption to the petitioner. In first appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court on the nature of the transaction and declared it to be one of sale; consequently, he decreed the suit. In second appeal, the High Court set aside the finding of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court; consequently, it maintained the judgment of the trial Court. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether the transaction was one of sale or exchange is one of fact. The High Court has given its reasons for preferring the finding of the trial Court to that of the first appellate Court. We are not persuaded that the reasons given by the High Court are insubstantial. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.