RAIS JEEVAN vs AKBAR ALI AND ORHERS
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular Second Appeal filed in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a transaction disguised as an exchange, coupled with a contemporaneous sale of the exchanged property on the same day, constitutes a 'sale' for the purposes of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the true nature of the transaction and the failure of the lower courts to draw proper inferences from vital material on record deserve consideration. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the composite effect of the concurrent mutations amounts to a sale in law and relevant precedents.
- Whether a transaction styled as an exchange accompanied by a contemporaneous sale of the exchanged land constitutes a sale for pre-emption purposes?
- Can concurrent mutations executed on the same day be construed together to determine the true nature of a property transaction?
- Whether the High Court was justified in declining interference with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the Order dated 23rd April, 1971 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a Regular Second Appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit preferred by the petitioner-pre-emptor was, dismissed.
2. ' The point agitated in the High Court was that although the transaction in question in reality was of sale, the vendor and the vendee-defendant gave it a false colour of exchange. As the lower two Courts below had rendered a finding that the petitioner had failed to establish the factum of sale, interrefence in revisional jurisdiction on question of finding of fact, was not considered justified.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has, amongst others, contended that the learned Courts below have failed to raise due inference from a vital material which remained available on record and was not attended to by the High Court. The same being that on the day the vendor and the vendee got a mutation of exchange sanctioned regarding the land in dispute with 3 Kanals 14 Marlas of the vendee's land, the vendor (on the same day) by a different mutation sold the so-called exchanged land measuring 3 Kanals 14 Marlas to the vendee for Rs, 22,000. Thus, the net result was that although on face there appeared to be two transactions ; one of exchange and the other of sale ; but the net result of the two mutations was that : while the disputed land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas remained with the vendee, the amount of Rs, 22,000 had gone in exchange to the vendor.
4. This, it is argued by the learned counsel, would fall within "sale" as defined in law and the relevant precedents.
5. ' Questions raised by the learned counsel deserve consideration. Leave is accordingly granted to examine them. Security Rs, 2,500.
Cited by 2 cases
- ZARIF KHAN vs ABDUL MANNA N ETC K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 622
- ZARIF KHAN vs ABDUL MANNA N ETC K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 73