UMAR AYAZ and others vs BEHARAMAND and another
This matter arises from a civil dispute where respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking a declaration that a previous pre-emption decree was ineffective and obtained through collusion and fraud. The trial court proceedings involved claims regarding pre-emption and subsequent property exchange transactions entered into by the son of respondent No.1. The appellate court held that the pre-emption decree was not collusive as petitioner No.1 had admitted its correctness, but found that the subsequent exchange deed executed by respondent No.1's son was ineffective due to lack of authority, modifying the decree to restore certain property possession upon payment. The High Court affirmed this modification in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the finding on the exchange transaction was one of fact and that petitioner No.1, having taken no steps to set aside the original decree, was bound to surrender possession of the property to respondent No.1.
- Whether a pre-emption decree can be declared ineffective on the ground of collusion when a party has admitted its correctness before the trial court?
- Does a son have the authority to exchange his father's property without proper authorization?
- Is a finding of fact regarding property transactions affirmed by the High Court open to interference in the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Bcharamand respondent.$1o.1, herein, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the decree passed in Civil Suit No,72/1 of 1979 was ineffective as against him and that it was obtained as a result of collusion and fraud between Umar Ayaz, petitioner No,1, herein, and Mohabat Mian, respondent No,2, herein.
2. ' Respondent No,2 had, in that suit against petitioner No,1, sought possession of the property (Swaro Gato) through pre-emption as on the allegation that it was sold to him by one All Muhammad.
3. ' The appellate Court .Held that it was not a collusive decree as petitioner No,1 himself had admitted in his statement before the Trial Court while withdrawing his application for the setting aside of the decree that it was rightly passed.
4. ' However, it appears that the son of respondent No,1 entered into a transaction of exchange of the property of his father with petitioner No,1 whercunder property known as 'Mainz Oba' belonging to his father was given in exchange for the property called 'Swam Gato' which was the subject-matter of the pre-cmption suit. The appellate Court held that this deed of exchange was ineffective as the son of respondent No,1 had no authority to exchange his father's property with that of petitioner No,1, aid as that was in possession of petitioner No,1 he modified the decree to the extent that respondent No,l. Was given the possession of the land known as 'Mainz Oba' whose possession hitherto was with the petitioner No,1 on payment of Rs,14,000. The modified decree was affirmed by the High Court in revision.
5. The finding on this aspect was one of fact and as the petitioner No,1 himself took no step to get the pre-emption decree set aside, he was bound to hand over the possession of the land (Mainz Oba) to respondent No,1, herein.