Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 455 of 1984, decided on 17th March, 1985.

---S. 115--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Suit for pre-emption- -Issue of fact--Concurrent findings on issue of fact by Courts below--Good and cogent reasons for believing/disbelieving witnesses given by Courts below--No exception, held, could be taken to concurrent findings of Courts below in absence o3 -misreading or non-reading of material evidence which could have affected judgment of such Courts.

Sh. Inayat Ali for Petitioner.

Ch. Naseer Ahmad for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 16th and 17th March of 1985.

On 8-1-1980, Syed Ghulam Miran Shah, filed suit for possession by pre-emption against Shafqat Razzaq on the basis of his superior right of pre-emption as being the son of the real sister of the vendor's father. It was averred in the plaint that the suit land was sold for Rs.8,000 only but to defeat the right of pre-emption the price was fictitiously mentioned as Rs.40,000 in the registered sale-deed. The suit was resisted whereupon 8 issues were framed. Parties led their evidence. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 27-5-1984 decreed the suit subject to the petitioner paying Rs.40,000 by 27-6-1984, Feeling aggrieved by this judgment Syed Ghulam Miran Shah, filed appeal and Shafaqat Razzaq filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the trial Court on all the issues. The appeal and the cross-objections were consolidated. The learned appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree, dated 7-lit-1984 dismissed the appeal as well as cross-objections. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the sale price by 7-11-1984, hence this revision, by Ghulam Miran Shah plaintiff /pre-emptor.

2. Before this Court the findings of the learned Courts below on issues Nos.4 and 5 have been challenged. The issues are as under:-

Whether a sum of Rs.40,000 was fixed in good faith or actually paid O.P.D.

If issue No .4 is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale O.P.P.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings o the learned Courts below on issue No. 4 suffer from misreading/ non-reading of material evidence; that Shafqat Razzaq vendee/ defendant stated that the sale price was not paid by him but was paid by his father; that it appears from his statement that Shafqat Razzaq was not present at the time of execution of the sale-deed Exh.D.3; that Gul Sher P.W.3 clearly stated that the suit land was sold for Rs.8,000 and Rs.40,000 were fictitiously shown in the sale-deed; that Gul Sher has been disbelieved without legal justification; that Hakam All petition-writer relied by the Courts below was not a dependable witness inasmuch as the trial Court had found him guilty of interpolation and that in view of the disparity between market value of the suit land and the ostensible sale price the Courts below should have determined the market price of the suit land and should not have left issue No.5 undecided. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant /respondent supported the judgment of the Courts below.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care I find that issue No.4 is an issue of fact. The learned Courts below after having applied their conscious mind to the relevant evidence have concurrently found this issue against the petitioner; that the learned Courts below have given good reasons for believing/disbelieving the witnesses; that the Courts below have given sound and cogent reasons in support of conclusion arrived by them; that Muhammad Siddique D.W.1 who is an attesting witness of agreement to sell EXh.D.1, receipt Exh.D.2 showing that Rs.32,000 were received by the vendor out of the office of Registrar before the registration of the sale-deed, is an independent witness. I do not see any reason to disbelieve him. He has been properly relied upon by the Courts below. Issue No.4 could have been found against the petitioner on the statement of this witness alone; that documents EXh.D.1 and D.2 corroborate his statement; that there is nothing on record to show that these documents are not genuine; that the omission to mention sale-agreement EXh.D.1 and Record Exh.D.2 in the sale-deed Exh.D.3 does not lead to the conclusion that the documents were fictitious or forged and that the learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading/ non7reading of the material evidence which might have affected the judgments of the learned Courts below. For all these reasons no exception can be taken to the concurrent findings of the Courts below on issue No.4. Since issue No.5 was a conditional issue and issue No.4 had successfully been. proved by the defendant /respondent, therefore, the same was rightly not discussed by the Courts below.

5. For what has been said above there being no merit, the revision is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner/ plaintiff shall deposit a sum of Rs.40,000 after deducting 1/5th of sale price if there is any, in the trial Court on or before 17-5-1985, failing which the suit for pre-emption filed by him shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.