Pir ABDUR REHMAN vs NATIQ HUSSAIN SHAH
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court rightly interfered with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction, which the trial and first appellate courts held to be a sale, but which the High Court on second appeal re-evaluated and determined to be a gift and thus not pre-emptible. The Supreme Court held that no infirmity existed in the impugned judgment of the High Court to warrant interference with its finding of fact in second appellate jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that the High Court's determination regarding the transaction being a gift was sustainable.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal in a pre-emption matter?
- Does a transaction classified as a gift attract the right of pre-emption?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a pre-emption matter against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal.
2. ' The respondent had contested the suit on the assertion that the transaction in question was gift, and, therefore, it was not pre-emptible. The petitioner's assertion that it was sale was accepted by the trial Court and the suit was decreed. The respondent's first appeal failed, but the High Court on second appeal filed by him accepted his plea that the transaction in question was gift.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the relevant record, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to hold that the finding of fact reached by the High Court could not have been rendered in its second appellate jurisdiction. The learned counsel has failed to satisfy us in this behalf.
4. ' Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.