Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 1412

SA UDULLAH KHAN and others vs QALANDAR and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 1412
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 63-R of 1983 R.S.A. No, 77 of 1981
Date1983-10-24
Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts holding that a disputed property transaction constituted an exchange rather than a sale, resulting in the dismissal of a suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of extrinsic evidence establishing the petitioner's contention, and given that the petitioner's witnesses were not present at the completion of the transaction, the lower courts rightly relied upon the exchange deed. The Court further ruled that a registered exchange deed cannot be construed as a sale merely on the basis of the potential price the land could fetch or the improbability of exchanging one kanal for three kanals. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a transaction described as an exchange can be construed as a sale merely on the basis of the price the land could fetch?
  • Does the improbability of exchanging one kanal of land in lieu of three kanals convert an exchange deed into a sale?
  • Can a pre-emption suit succeed when the plaintiff fails to provide extrinsic evidence and witnesses who were not present at the completion of the transaction?
pre-emptionsale vs exchangeexchange deedextrinsic evidenceconcurrent findings

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J.-- In this petition the question for consideration was as to whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange, and the Courts below held that it was an exchange.

2. Accordingly, the suit for pre-emption failed. It may be added that the petitioner examined himself and one other witness but as none of them was present at the time of the completion of the transaction, the trial Court disbelieved them.

3. In the absesnce of extrinsic evidence to establish the contention of the petitioner, the Courts below relied on the exchange deed, which, according to them, could not be construed as a sale merely on the basis of price which the land could fetch or the improbability of exchange of 1 Kanal in lieu of 3 Kanals.

4. ' The conclusion of the Courts below is unexceptionable and, accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.