| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLD 760 = 1992 CLC 331 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 168 of 1988, heard on 14th April, 1991.
Presented By: Before Amjad Khan, J
Muhammadd Aqil Mirza for Appellants. Hamad Khan and Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for
Respondent.
Regular Second Appeal No. 168 of 1988, heard on 14th April, 1991.
Presented By: Before Amjad Khan, J
Muhammadd Aqil Mirza for Appellants. Hamad Khan and Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for
Respondent.
AHMAD and others --- Appellalits4-
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD AKRAM---Respondent
Law:
Section: 25 , 100
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ----S. 25---Pre-emption suit---Fixing of price for purposes of pre-emption in case of sale---Where Court had found that price mentioned in sale-deed was, in fact, paid, then, the pre-emptor would be required to pay that price---Court in such case, would not be bound to determine market value of property and fix the price for purposes of pre-emption ---Courts below had erred in law, in determining market value of land and thereupon treating the presumption attaching to the certificate of Sub-Registrar, relating to registration of transaction, to have been rebutted payment of specific amount having been mentioned in sale-deed, specific assertion of pre-emptor in plaint with regard to the return of sale price, was to be proved by pre-emptor ---Pre-emtpor, however, did not produce satisfactory evidence on said point---Plea of return of sale price/portion thereof, was not proved in circumstances. Malik Hussain and others v. Lal Ram Chand and others PLD 1970 SC 299 rel. Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)--- ----S. 25---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Second appeal---Actual payment of sale price having been proved, suit was decreed on condition of payment of that amount---Decree granted by Courts below was modified to the extent of sale price proved to have been paid by the vendees---Plaintiff's failure to pay such amount upto specified date, would render dismissal of his suit. Muhammadd Aqil Mirza for Appellants. Hamad Khan and Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th April, 1991. JUDGMENT In this second appeal maintained by vendees, the dispute is confined to money payable under the pre-emption decree which itself is not under contest. Sale sued out to be pre-empted by the respondent was effected on 12-10-1980 through a registered deed for an ostensible price of Rs.5,00,000 certified by the Sub-Registrar to have been paid before him but it was alleged by the pre-emptor that a sum of Rs.2,50,000 was returned by the vendor after the registration. Contest entered by the vendees led to the framing of issues Nos.2 and 3 on the point in the…