MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs MIRAN BAKHSH and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the findings of the District Judge in a pre-emption suit. The respondents had originally filed a suit asserting that a transaction labeled as a gift was, in reality, a sale subject to pre-emption. While the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, concluding the transaction was a genuine gift. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, re-examined the evidence, set aside the District Judge's finding, and restored the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the High Court was competent to interfere with the District Judge's finding of fact regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court was justified in its interference. The Court reasoned that the District Judge had failed to consider critical evidence—specifically, the lack of connection between the donor and the petitioners, the donor's large family, and the donor's small landholding—which were essential to determining the true nature of the transaction.
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a District Judge in revisional jurisdiction when critical evidence has been overlooked?
- Is a transaction labeled as a gift subject to pre-emption if it is proven to be a sale?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to consider material circumstances regarding the parties' relationship and financial status justify revisional interference?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of a transaction of gift with the assertion that it was in fact a sale. The trial Court accepted their assertion and decreed the suit. On appeal by the petitioners the District Judge came to a contrary conclusion and held that the transaction was a gift and therefore not pre-emptible; accordingly, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. The respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge re-examined the evidence, set aside the finding of the learned District Judge And upheld that of the trial Court. Accordingly, he restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the question whether the transaction was one of gift or sale was one of fact and the High Court was not competent to interfere with the finding of the District Judge in revisional jurisdiction.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we do not think that a case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court has been made out. The learned District Judge omitted to note that the alleged donor was in no way connected with the petitioners, had a large family of his own to support and was owner of a very small holding. These circumstances had an important bearing on the main issue before the Court. The High Court was therefore justified in interfering with the finding of the learned District Judge. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- NAZAR KHAN vs Mst. HASSAN BEGUM and anothers 2013 MLD 913