MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. -- This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below vide their judgments and decrees dated 26.07.2007 and 08.11.2007 whereby the suit for possession through pre-emption and appeal filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that by virtue of the suit for possession through pre-emption, petitioner assailed a transaction of exchange deed No. 7282, dated 21.12.2012, being a sale. The suit was resisted by the respondent by controverting the facts besides raising the preliminary objections. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the issues and parties were allowed to lead their evidence according to onus on issues. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2007 dismissed the suit of the petitioner on the basis of the findings recorded on issue No. 3 and the appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed .By the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2007, hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the transaction in fact was a sale and not an exchange. There is a considerable difference in price of both the lands as the respondents disguised the transaction an exchange, hence the orders of both the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. Further contends that the difference of price is sufficient to hold that the transaction was a sale and not an exchange. Reliance is placed on (PLD 1951 Peshawar 45)
Mutwalli and others v. The Crown and (PLD 1968 Peshawar 120) Muhammad Azim Khan v. Mst.
Mugaisha and another.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove his contention, therefore, both the learned Courts below were right in holding concurrently that the transaction was an exchange. Further contends that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the judgments of both the learned Courts below. So, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below are hot liable to interfere with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless any perversity or grave illegality is pointed out while the petitioner has failed to point out any, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. I am regrettably, not persuaded by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The moot point involved in the case at hand is whether a particular transaction is one of sale or exchange - primarily a question of fact. In the instant case, I have the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the transaction amount to an exchange and not sale. I have myself examined the relevant evidence meticulously and found the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below to be correct and was unable to discover any misreading or non-reading of evidence in this behalf. Mere assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the difference of price of the land, could not be considered to be a valid ground for declaring any exchange to a sale. The case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are patently distinguishable from the facts and circumstances involved in the instant case. On the contrary, it pertains to the question of gift which could not be proved by producing the evidence on record. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of both the Courts below and declare that these concurrent conclusions have been arrived at in accordance with law and in consonance with the spirit of justice. Thus, this petition merits rejection and dismissed accordingly.