SHER AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Sher Ahmad, against a judgment of the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The dispute originated from the determination of the sale price of the suit land. While the trial court fixed the price at Rs. 30,000, the Additional District Judge reduced it to Rs. 13,854 on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court accepted the respondent's appeal and restored the price to Rs. 30,000, concluding that the price stated in the sale deed was genuine and paid by the vendee. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had wrongly determined the price. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of the sale price is a question of fact. The Court affirmed the principle that it will not grant leave to appeal for the purpose of reappraising evidence to set aside a High Court's finding on a question of fact.
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of reappraising evidence regarding a question of fact?
- Is the determination of the sale price of land in a pre-emption suit considered a question of fact?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Sher Ahmad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 11-4-1984 accepting the appeal of Muhammad Hanif, respondent, in a pre- emption case.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Sher Ahmad petitioner filed a pre--emption suit against Muhammad Hanif respondent. The suit was decreed, but the price of the suit land was fixed by the learned trial Court as Rs.30,000. The petitioner felt that the price should be less than that mentioned in the sale- deed. He, therefore, filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and reduced the price to Rs.13,854. The other side (Muhammad Hanif defendant-- respondent) filed an R.S.A. Before the High Court which accepted the appeal and again increased the price of the suit-land to Rs.30,000, holding that the sale price mentioned in the sale-deed was genuine and had been paid by Muhammad Hanif vendee/ respondent as price of the land in question.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The only contention urged on his behalf is that the price of the suit-land has been wrongly determined by the learned High Court. We are afraid this is a question of fact and the petitioner's contention amounts to a request for reappraisal of evidence for setting aside the High Court's finding on a question of fact. We do not consider this proper to grant leave for that purpose.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.