1987 PLP 1469 (SCMR)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ATTA ELAHI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1469 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ATTA ELAHI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1469 (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 1987 PLP 1469 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1469 (SCMR) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ATTA ELAHI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 12‑4‑1987 in Civil Revision No. 234 of 1987). ‑‑Ss. 4 & 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Pre‑emption suit‑‑Sale price partly paid in cash and partly by transfer of land by vendee‑‑Pre‑emption suit dismissed on ground that transfer of land was effected not through sale but through exchange‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the plea that where major portion of consideration was paid in the form of money the transaction was one of sale and not that of exchange.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit which was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the High Court declined to interfere with the said judgment and decree in revisional jurisdiction.
2. The respondent obtained 26 kanals and 11 marlas of land from Mst. Mamen. According to the findings of the Courts below the market value of this land was Rs.5,00,
000. By way of consideration she paid Rs.3,75,000/‑ in cash to Mst. Mamen and also transferred 12 Kanals and 16 Marlas of her own land to the latter. The petitioner who was a collateral of Mst. Mamen and also a co‑sharer in the khata of which the land obtained by the respondent formed a part filed a suit for pre‑emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court solely on the ground that the transaction between the respondent and Mst. Mamen was that of an exchange. This finding was affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that where the major portion of the consideration is paid in the form of money the transaction is one of sale and not that of exchange. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/‑ The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./K‑15/S Leave granted.