MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus IKRAMUL HAQ
This matter involves three petitions for special leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the transaction through which the vendees acquired ownership of the estate constituted a gift, as claimed by the respondents, or a sale, as asserted by the petitioners, and whether the lower appellate court erred in its determination of this nature. The trial court had initially found the transaction to be a sale; however, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, concluding it was a gift. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, refused to interfere with this factual determination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Additional District Judge had properly examined the evidence and surrounding circumstances. The Court affirmed that the nature of the transaction was a pure question of fact, and since the lower appellate court's finding did not suffer from any legal infirmity, the High Court was correct in declining to interfere with that finding in revision. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
- Is the determination of whether a transaction constitutes a gift or a sale considered a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by an appellate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a finding of fact by an appellate court that is based on an examination of evidence and circumstances warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑These three petitions for special leave arise out of three pre‑emption suits and the sole question for consideration is whether the vendees had become owners in the estate by virtue of a gift executed in their favour prior to the institution of the suits by one Hashmat Ali. The case of the petitioners was that the said transaction was one of sale and not of gift. The trial Court accepted the assertion of the petitioners. However, in appeal the Additional District Judge came to a contrary conclusion. In revisional jurisdiction the High Court declined to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the finding o the learned Additional District Judge on the nature of transaction was erroneous. We do not find any merit ‑in this contention. The learned Additional District Judge examined the entire evidence together with the attending circumstances and recorded his finding which does not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court was justified in declining, to interfere with it, as it was one purely on a question of fact. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.
M.I./M‑510/S Petitions dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- AHMED vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others 2009 YLR 118