' Sultan Ali, pre-emptor's suit filed against Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Safdar, vendees, was decreed on 2-10-2002 by the Civil Judge, Gojra. The appeal and Civil Revision No.736 of 2003, filed by the vendees-respondents were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gojra as well as by this Court on 30-1-2003 and 6-5-2003, respectively.
2. Against the finding on Issues Nos.9 and 10 recorded by the trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 2-10-2002 the pre-emptor/petitioner had remedy of filing cross-objections under Order XLI, rule 22, C.P.C., which was not availed by him nor any cross-objections were filed against the revision Petition No.736 of 2003, filed by the vendees-respondents against the appellate order of the Court. In this view of the matter, this petition is not maintainable. Moreover, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the facts and law discussed hereunder.
3. Through this civil revision, Sultan Ali, pre-emptor-petitioner impugns the findings of Additional District Judge and the Civil Judge given by them in their judgments, respectively dated 30-1-2003 and 2-10-2002, on Issues Nos.9 and 10 only regarding sale price fixed and paid and the market value of the suit-land. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that specific sale price of Rs.35,000 stood entered in the registered sale-deed No.208/1 dated 30-1-1994 (Exh.P.12); the respondents-vendees were party to the sale-deed and as such they could not wriggle out of their own admission about the sale price of Rs.35,000. Adds that the findings of both the Courts below on Issues Nos.9 and 10 are result of misreading of evidence.
4. In pursuance of pre-admission notice, respondents have entered appearance and are represented by counsel. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that from the certificate Exh.D.1 issued by the Habib Bank Limited, New Railway Road, Gojra, it is proved that on 30-1-1994 Sardar Muhammad received an amount of Rs.86,000 from Shaukat Ali vide Cheque No.7177346.
Sardar Muhammad while appearing before the Tehsildar stated that he received the amount of Rs.86,000 through cheque and out of this amount of Rs.86,000, an amount of Rs.35,000 was of registered sale-deed whereas he had to recover Rs.51,000. Adds that from the evidence of the defendant it is proved that in fact sale consideration was fixed as Rs.90,000 out of which Rs.4,000 were paid as earnest money and Rs.86,000 were paid to Sardar Muhammad through cheque dated 30-1-1994 therefore, concurrent findings of fact regarding sale price of the land on the basis of the certificate Exh.D.1 cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the cases reported as Qasim Ali v. Muhammad Saeed PLD 1989 Lahore. 230 and Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas 1981 SCM R 701.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
Specific sale price of Rs.35,000 stood entered in the registered sale-deed dated 29-1-1994 (Exh. .P.12). It is an admitted position on the record that the amount of Rs.86,000 was received by Sardar Muhammad from Account No.18012-9 of Shaukat Ali vide Cheque No.71773469. One of the vendees, namely, Shaukat Ali appeared as D.W.2 and stated that bargain of the suit property was settled with Talib Hussain and Sardar Muhammad at Rs.90,000, Rs.4,000 were paid as earnest money and remaining sale price of Rs.86,000 was paid through cheque. D.W.3, Muhammad Tufail stated that an amount of Rs.86,000 was paid in bank and that at the time of payment of sale consideration the plaintiff was also present Rs.4,000 were paid as earnest money and Rs.35,000 were shown as sale price. Certificate Exh.D.1 issued by the Habib Bank, New Railway Road, Gojra shows that on 30-1-1994 Sardar Muhammad received Rs.86,000 from Shaukat Ali through cheque. The witnesses of the plaintiff were not present at the time of sale consideration. In the sale-deed Exh.P.12 though sale price of Rs.35,000 has been mentioned, but the same was not paid before the Registrar at the time of attestation of the sale-deed. The statement contained in the sale-deed Exh.P.12 is {{URDU TEXT}} On the basis of evidence of the defendants/respondents, i.e. Sale-deed Exh.P.12 and certificate issued by the Bank Exh.D.1, excluding the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner, both the Courts below have rightly concluded that Rs.90,000 were fixed as sale price of the suit property in good faith and not Rs.35,000 as claimed by the plaintiff. The actual sale price was Rs.90,000. The judgments reported in PLD 1989 Lahore 230 and 1981 SCM R 701, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not apply to the facts of the present case. In absence of other evidence, the price mentioned in the sale-deed can be relied, but here the position is different.
The petition is not maintainable. Moreover, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts of competent jurisdiction on the basis of above evidence cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.