Haji GHAUS BAKHSH and others vs Haji RAHIM BAKHSH and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts and the High Court, which dismissed a suit for pre-emption concerning agricultural land on the ground that the underlying transaction was an exchange rather than a sale. The core legal question is whether a transaction characterized as an exchange can be treated as a sale subject to pre-emption based on the vendee's subsequent willingness to settle by accepting the market price to avoid litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings. The Court ruled that a vendee's willingness to transfer land upon payment of the market price to avoid litigation does not constitute an admission that the transaction was a sale. The key principle laid down is that attempts to settle litigation or avoid disputes do not alter the true legal nature of a transaction established through evidence.
- Whether a transaction found to be an exchange can be subjected to pre-emption as a sale?
- Does a vendee's willingness to accept market price to avoid litigation amount to an admission of a sale transaction?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a transaction be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Bakht Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, together with two others, now no longer in the field, instituted a suit for pre-emption in respect of a transaction relating to transfer of agricultural land. The trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia on the ground that the transaction was one of exchange. Bakht All preferred an appeal before the District Judge. It was heard by an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the nature of the transaction. Bakht Ali filed a regular second appeal in the High Court but that too remained unsuccessful. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts that the transaction was not pre- emptible as it was not one of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that at one stage the vendee had agreed to the transaction being pre-empted provided he was paid the market price of the land; accordingly, an arbitrator was appointed who worked out the market price; even though, subsequently, the proceedings taken by the arbitrator were set aside, the fact that the vendee had no objection to the suit being decreed indicated that the transaction was one of sale and not of exchange.
3. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The willingness of the vendee to transfer the land to Bakht All on receipt of market price could well have been motivated by a desire to avoid litigation rather than an admission on his part that the transaction was one of sale. As the transaction in question has been found to be one of exchange after a proper appreciation of evidence, this petition is without any merit and is dismissed.