Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 48‑P of 1983, decided on 12th April, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Peshawar, dated 29‑1‑1983 in R. S. A. No. 10 of 1980).

‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with N.‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 31 (1)‑Suit for pre‑emption‑Limitation‑Finding of courts below that vendee petitioner took possession of suit land 4‑5 months after execution of sale‑deed based on correct appreciation of evidence pro duced by parties‑Held, cannot be interfered with by Supreme Court.

Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing :12th April, 1983.

Facts of this case briefly stated are that on 2s2‑1979 respondent filed a pre‑emption suit against the petitioner in respect of suit land. Petition in defence, inter alia, pleaded that the suit was time‑barred as he had purchased the land on 20‑1‑1978. Since the sale was by an unregistered document and was not recorded in the register of mutations, the crucial date for the start of the period of limita tion, in view of the provisions of section 31(1) of the N.‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act., 1950, was the date on which petitioner took, under the sale, physical possession of the land. .

The trial Judge on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, in particular on petitioner's own statement that he took actual possession of land 4/5 months after the sale transaction, held that the suit was not time -barred. This view was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Malakand and he dismissed petitioner's appeal, and finally a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court on re‑appraisal of the evidence also confirmed this view, and dismissed petitioner's revision application.

Mr. Muhammad Bilal learned counsel appearing in support of this peti tion for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that due weight has not been given to the evidence produced by the petitioner that he took possession of the suit land on 20‑1‑1978 when the sale‑deed was executed as per contents of that document itself.

After having gone through the‑record of the case it the light of the argu ments addressed by the learned counsel, we find no scope for interference by this Court, for, all the three courts below have held on correct appreciation of evidence produced by the parties that petitioner took possession of the suit land 4 or 5 months after the execution of the; sale‑deed.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.