1990 PLP 760 (SCMR)
Haji GHAUS BAKHSH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji RAHIM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents .
| Citation | 1990 PLP 760 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji GHAUS BAKHSH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji RAHIM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents . |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 760 (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 1990 PLP 760 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 760 (SCMR) (Haji GHAUS BAKHSH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji RAHIM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Saddiq Kamyana, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 20‑5‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, in R.SA. No.49 of 1987). ‑‑‑Ss.3(5), 4 & 15‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Sale, determination of‑‑‑Subordinate Courts, concurrently found transaction not pre‑emptible as it was not sale, but was exchange‑‑‑Concurrent findings of subordinate Courts which were based on proper appreciation of evidence on record could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.3(5), 4 & 15‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Sale, determination of‑‑‑Subordinate Courts, concurrently found transaction not pre‑emptible as it was not sale, but was exchange‑‑‑Concurrent findings of subordinate Courts which were based on proper appreciation of evidence on record could not be interfered with. Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Saddiq Kamyana, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑Bakht Ali, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, together with two others, now no longer in the field, instituted a suit for pre‑emption in respect of a transaction relating to transfer of agricultural land. The trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia on the ground that the transaction was one of exchange. Bakht Ali preferred an appeal before the District Judge. It was heard by an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the nature of the transaction. Bakht Ali filed a regular second appeal in the High Court but that too remained unsuccessful. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts that the transaction was not pre‑emptible as it was not one of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that at one stage the vendee had agreed to the transaction being pre‑empted provided he was paid the market price of the land; accordingly, an arbitrator was appointed who worked out the market price; even though, subsequently, the proceedings taken by the arbitrator were set aside, the fact that the vendee had no objection to the suit being decreed indicated that the transaction was one of sale and not of exchange.
3. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The willingness of the vendee to transfer the land to Bakht Ali on receipt of market price could well have been motivated by a desire to avoid litigation rather than an admission on his part that the transaction was one of sale. As the transaction in question has been found to be one of exchange after a proper appreciation of evidence, this petition is without any. merit and is dismissed. H.B.T./G‑256/S Petition dismissed.