DODHA vs AADIT and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and maintained the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal questions involve the determination of whether the impugned transaction constituted a sale and whether the mandatory statutory requirements regarding Talbs were fulfilled. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate that the transaction was a sale through convincing evidence and also failed to comply with the requisite Talbs mandated by law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be interfered with absent any illegality or legal infirmity.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the nature of a transaction can be interfered with in civil revision or leave to appeal?
- Is compliance with the requisite Talbs mandatory for maintaining a suit for possession through pre-emption under the Punjab Preemption Act 1991?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence to prove that a disputed transaction is a sale for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Section 13, Punjab Preemption Act 1991
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-1-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioner and maintained the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below i,e, the learned Civil Judge, Sadiqabad, and the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for possession through pre-emption.
2. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner could not substantiate his stance that the impugned transaction was a sale.
3. None of the witnesses appearing from his side has brought on record any convincing evidence to prove that it was a sale. Apart from this, the requisite Talbs as mandated by section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991, have not been complied with. A question of fact after scanning the entire evidence brought on record has been determined by the two Courts below and the said determination has been maintained by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court.
4. ' Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.