1998 PLP 2054 (SCMR)
SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KALA KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2054 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KALA KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2054 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2054 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2054 (SCMR) (SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KALA KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Anwar H. Mir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1995
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order/judgment, dated 24th October, 1994 passed by Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, in C. R. No. 19 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Coustitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for pre emption was dismissed on the ground that transaction in question, being gift and not sale, same was not pre‑emptible‑‑‑Such finding of Trial Court was maintained up to the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Courts below including the High Court, after appraising evidence brought on record, had found that land in question was gifted and not sold to defendant, therefore, same was not pre- emptible‑‑‑Plaintiff had not been able to point out any infirmity in that finding‑‑ High Court, in fact, duly considered all relevant evidence, oral as also documentary and had maintained findings of Courts below‑‑‑Matter as such stood concluded by findings of fact recorded by Courts below after proper appraisal of evidence which was not shown to suffer from any flaw or legal error so as to warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad dated 24-10-1994 dismissing his revision petition directed against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below dismissing his suit.
2. Petitioner brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the land which it was alleged was sold by Mst. Taslim Bibi to Kala Khan respondent for a sum of Rs.10,000 but in order to defeat the superior pre emptive rights of the petitioner, the sale was given the colour of a gift. The suit was contended by the respondent which gave rise to as many as ten issues. Learned trial Court after taking the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the petitioner's suit vide judgment dated 29-7-1989 holding that the transaction was a gift and not sale and, therefore, not pre-emptible. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge who dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide judgment dated 22-1-1991. Petitioner's revision petition, too, met no better fate and was dismissed by the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition. His main contention is that Mst. Taslim Bibi was not the wife of Kala Khan respondent and there was thus no reason for her to make a gift in his favour. According to the learned counsel, she had in fact sold the suit land to the respondent but the transaction was shown as a gift in order to frustrate the petitioner's superior right of pre-emption. We find no merit in these contentions. All the learned Courts including the High Court after appraising the evidence brought on the record have found that the suit land was gifted and not sold to the respondent. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in this finding such as misreading of evidence or non-reading/non-consideration of any material evidence. On the contrary, we find that the learned Judge in the High Court has duly considered all the relevant evidence, oral as also documentary, and upheld the findings of the Courts below that P' Mst. Taslim Bibi had gifted the suit land to the respondent. It has been noted by the learned Judge that the petitioner's own witness Shafqat Zaman Patwari worked out the value of the suit land at Rs.11,86,014.19 according to rive years average (EXh.P.W.I/3) and Rs.25,93,007.84 as per one year average (EXII.P.W.1/5) and observed and rightly so that this evidence belied the testimony of P.Ws.5 and 6 who stated that the bargain was struck in their presence for a sum of Rs.10,000.
4. The matter, in our view, stands concluded by the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below after proper appraisal of the evidence which is not shown to suffer from any flaw or legal error. No case is, therefore, made out for interference by this Court. This petition is dismissed and the leave sought is refused. A.A./S-33/S Leave refused