| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3115 = 1981 SLD 3115 = 1981 PLD 349 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No, 32 of 1966, decided on 18th February, 1980.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Nisar Ahmad, JJ
Khadim Hussain and others v. Ghulab P L 1? 1954 Lab. 471 distinguished. Raja Said Akbar Khan for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Rahman for
Respondents.
Regular First Appeal No, 32 of 1966, decided on 18th February, 1980.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Nisar Ahmad, JJ
Khadim Hussain and others v. Ghulab P L 1? 1954 Lab. 471 distinguished. Raja Said Akbar Khan for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Rahman for
Respondents.
Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH ETC.-Appellants
VERSUS
JALAL DIN ETC.-Respondents
Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section: 58(1)(c)
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)
Section: 37
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 91
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
Section: 25(1)
(a) Registration Act (XVI of 1908) S. 58(1)(c)-Endorsement of payment of money on registered document-Presumption-Endorsement by Registering Officer on documents admitted to registration of any payment of money made in his presence-Presumption of correctness attached to such endorsement, held, rebuttable. Wahid Bukhsh v. Muhammad Shaft P L D 1976 Lab. 1069 ref. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) S. 37 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 91, Explanation III Entries in revenue records-Mutation not produced but Revenue Officer attesting mutation giving oral evidence regarding endorsement about payment of a certain amount on attestation of mutation Held, non-production of original mutation does not militate against evidentiary value of statement of Revenue Officer appearing as witness. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) S. 25(1)-Average price list-Five yearly average price list clot mentioning classification of land subject of sale nor showing situation of land--Held, trial Judge rightly refused to place reliance on such document.-[Evidence]. Date of hearing : 17th February, 1980. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.-This appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the appellants to pre-empt the sale of the land in dispute. The sale was evidenced by Mutation No. 498 sanctioned on 31-3-1964 and Rs. 60,060 was the sale price mentioned therein. The appellants however, pleaded that the sale price was fictitiously shown as Rs. 60,000 to defeat the appellants right of pre-emption and that the market price of the land was not more than Rs. 30,000. The respondents contested the suit and contended that the sale price of Rs 60,000 was fixed in good faith and actually paid. It was asserted that the market value of the land was also to the same extent. 2. On 24-2-1966 the learned…