MUHAMMAD AZAM vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and 16 others
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the nature of a land transfer transaction involving Sahib Dad and the contesting respondents. The core legal question was whether the transaction constituted a sale or an exchange, a determination critical to the petitioner's claim for the right of pre-emption. The trial court initially characterized the transaction as an exchange, thereby denying the pre-emption claim. The first appellate court subsequently reversed this finding, classifying the transaction as a sale and decreeing the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the High Court in second appeal overturned the appellate court's decision, restoring the trial court's original finding that the transaction was an exchange. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the classification of the transaction as either a sale or an exchange is a question of fact. Finding that the High Court provided substantial and sufficient reasoning for preferring the trial court's conclusion over that of the first appellate court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that there was no merit in the challenge to the High Court's findings.
- Is the determination of whether a land transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange considered a question of fact?
- Can a High Court in second appeal prefer the findings of a trial court over those of a first appellate court if the reasoning is substantial?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the transaction by which Sahib Dad had transferred his land to the contesting respondents was one of sale or exchange. The learned trial Judge held that the transaction was one of exchange and on the basis of this finding he denied the relief of pre-emption to the petitioner. In first appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court on the nature of the transaction and declared it to be one of sale; consequently, he decreed the suit. In second appeal, the High Court set aside the finding of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court; consequently, it maintained the judgment of the trial Court. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether the transaction was one of sale or exchange is one of fact. The High Court has given its reasons for preferring the finding of the trial Court to that of the first appellate Court.
We are not persuaded that the reasons given by the High Court are insubstantial. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.