LAL KHAN Versus REHMAT
The petitioner instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas, claiming a superior right based on relationship with the vendor and alleging that the disputed transaction of exchange was given that colour to defeat his pre-emption right. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioner had no superior right. Subsequent appeals and a civil revision before the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question concerned whether the lower courts correctly evaluated the nature of the transaction through the mutations in question to deny the petitioner's pre-emption claim. The Supreme Court held that the transaction, when examined alongside related mutations, established that the respondent had acquired the land through a valid exchange of properties. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings regarding the true nature of a property transaction based on evidence will not be disturbed when the transaction is proved to be a genuine exchange rather than a sale subject to pre-emption.
- Does a transaction framed as an exchange of land defeat a suit for possession through pre-emption?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the nature of a land transaction warrant interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The petitioner instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas on payment of Rs,3000 including the mortgage money of Rs,2100 on the ground that the land in dispute, was owned by All Ahmad son of Noor Ahmad and the transaction in dispute was given a colour of exchange with a view to defeat his right of pre- emption which was claimed on the basis of relationship with the vendor and as the respondent had no such qualification. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge per judgment and decree dated 26-7-81 holding that the petitioner had no superior right. Appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge while the Civil Revision was dismissed in limine by the learned High Court vide the impugned order.
2.We find that the courts below have held that the transaction, arising out of mutation No,802 Exh.P5 and mutation No,803 Exh.P4, if kept in juxtaposition, would show that respondent had become owner of 4 kanals 16 marlas of land in Chak Bhatia for which he gave his own land I n exchange and Walayat brother of the said Rahmat, respondent, had become owner of 8 kanals of land through the sale deed executed by the said Ali Ahmad etc. Hence we find no merit in this petition which is consequently dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.