Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 11

Law: N.W. F. P. Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950)

Section: 12

  Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 11-Unregistered document affecting property worth more than Rs. 100-No material on record to show that document was inconsistent with any fact in issue-Such document, held, inadmissible in evidence-Registration Act (XVI of I9OS), Ss. 17 & 49.   Sheo Bandban v. Sahdeo Prasad A I R 1930 All. 130 distinguished. Abdus Sattar v. Yunus Malik P L D 1961 Dacca 512 ref.   N.W. F. P. Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 12-Co-sharer---No evidence, except unregistered sale-deed, to show that prospective pre-emptor was in possession of any portion of suit land as owner-Unregistered document being in admissible in evidence does not confer any title on such person to claim pre-emption of suit land-Registration Act (XYI of 1908), S. 49.   Dates of hearing: 7th and 14th June 1965.   JUDGMENT   Briefly, the facts giving rise to these two Regular Second Appeals Nos. 138/61 and 139/61, are that on the basis of mutation No. 2073, attested on 14-1-60, Mst. Zari Posh sold land measur ing 11 kanals 6 marlas 6 sirsais, out of Khasra Nos. 340 and 343, situate in Khunda Maira, Tahsil Swabi, District Mardan, to Ghulam Jan and Ataullah residents of the same village, for the ostensible sum of Rs. 880. This sale gave rise to two pre-emption suits. Suit No. 102/1 was brought by Qudratullah, son of Sharifullah, resident of Zaida, alleging that the disputed property had been sold for Rs. 300, but the inflated sum of Rs. 880 was fraudulently and fictitiously entered in the sale mutation with a view to ward off a pre-emption suit. He based his superior right of pre-emption on being a co-sharer in the suit Khata and being the owner of the contiguous land, whereas the vendees lacked these qualifications. Ajab Khan, son of Najibullah, resident of Khunda, also brought a suit for possession by pre-emption of the suit land, which was registered at No. 29/1 of 1961, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Swabi, on 23-1-61. He also urged that the suit land was sold for Rs. 300 and the sum of Rs. 880 was fraudulently and fictitiously entered in the sale mutation. Claiming his superior right of pre-emption, he urged that he was a co-sharer in the…