Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 669‑R of 1983, decide, on 18th March, 1984.

(On Appeal from the Order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 24‑9‑1983 in Civil Revision No.132 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 12‑ Vendor, prior to sale of land in dispute, exchanging two small pieces of land with vendee from same Khasra Nos. which were subsequently sold to him and obtained land from vendee‑‑Vendee mortgaged land in dispute to brother of vendee after such exchange and before sale, allegedly with a view to show artificial inflated price of land‑‑No circum stantial evidence present either to support plea of exchange being in reality sale‑‑Material available to show that exchange was genuinely made‑‑Held, it did not make any difference that it saved the subsequent sale from exercise of right of pre‑emption‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Abdul Hakeem Khan, Sr.Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18th March, 1984.

.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 29‑9‑1982 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby a civil Revision arising out of a pre‑emption suit was allowed and peti tioner's/plaintiff's suit for pre‑emption was dismissed.

Prior to the sale of land in dispute the vendor exchanged with the respondent /vendee two small pieces of land (total 10 Marlas) from the same Khasra Nos. which were subsequently sold to him and obtained 10 Marlas of land from the vendee. The vendee also mortgaged the land in dispute to the brother of vendee after the above exchange and before the disputed sale, allegedly with a view to show artificial inflated price of the land. The petitioner's/plaintiff's case was that the exchange and mortgage transactions were fictitious and a disguise so as to defeat the right of pre‑emption. The trial Court rejected this plea while the appellate Court accepted it and decreed the suit. The High Court on respondents'‑vendees' revision restored the trial Court's finding namely on the ground of misreading by the appellate Court and further that it was a case of no material for supporting the finding that the exchange by which the vendee became a co‑sharer, was fictitious.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He has also read some pieces of evidence. We are satisfied that there was misreading of evidence by the appellate Court. There is no circum stantial evidence either to support the plea of exchange being in reality sale. On the contrary there is material to show that the exchange was genuinely made. That being so, it does not make any difference that it saved the subsequent sale from the exercise of right of pre‑emption.

This petition has no force and is thus dismissed.

M . Z . M . 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.