Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2006 SCMR 588

MUHAMMAD IDREES vs GHULAM NABI

Citation2006 SCMR 588
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,511-L of 2001
Date2003-01-29
Judge(s)Javaid Iqbal, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 14-11-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,51 of 1989.

2. The suit of the respondent for possession through pre-emption was decreed against the petitioner, by judgment and decree, dated 19-7-1986, passed by the Civil Judge, Kharian District Gujrat, whereby the amount of Rs,21,000 being the actual price was determined as against the amount of Rs,45,000 mentioned in the sale-deed. The appeal and Civil. Revision No,51 of 1989 of the petitioner was respectively dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat and the Lahore High Court by judgments dated 12-12-1988 and 14-11-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount of Rs,45,000 mentioned in the registered sale-deed as the sale price of the land could not have been reduced by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court in appeal and revision. Reliance was placed on the case of Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas 1981 SCM R 701.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that the marginal witnesses of the sale-deed appeared as P.W..1 and P.W.2 who categorically stated that the amount of Rs,21,000 and not Rs,45,000 was paid as a sale consideration. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. In the circumstances the Lahore High Court was justified in taking the view that the initial presumption arising out of the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar on the registered sale-deed was rebutted by the marginal witnesses of the sale-deed. The judgment in the case of Khalid Bashir, (supra) was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. We do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Lahore High Court in the impugned judgment.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch