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 trial Judge passed the decree in respondents' favour, on payment of Rs. 60,000. As many as nine issues which arose out of the pleadings of the parties, were framed by him. The appellants have assailed the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No. 9 only which is reproduced below :- Whether Rs. 60,000 were fixed in good faith or actually paid as the price of the suit property ?
The stand taken by the respondents that the bargain was struck at Rs. 60;000; the parties entered into an agreement on 17-1-1964, for the sale of the land for Rs. 59,000, out of which a sum of Rs.
40,000 was paid to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of this agreement, which was produced in evidence as Exh. D. 1; originally the area agreed to be sold was 117 kanals 18 marlas but the vendor actually transferred 119 kanals, 19 marlas; the sale price was increased to Rs. 60,000. The vendor received the remaining Rs. 20,000 at the time of attestation of the mutation. In order to prove the execution of the agreement Exh. D. 1, the , respondents examined the two marginal witnesses thereof namely Faiz Ahmad D. W. 1 and Noor Muhammad D. W.
3. Both these witnesses stated that the sum of Rs. 40,000 was paid to the vendor at the time of registration of the deed Exh. D. 1, and the balance of Rs. 20,000 was received by him in the presence of the Revenue Officer, when the mutation was attested. The respondents also relied on the testimony of Haji Muhammad Hussain, Naib-Tehsildar D. W.
2. The mutation in question was sanctioned by him.
He stated that the sum of Rs. 20,OC0 was passed .On to the vendor in his presence. Faqir Muhammad respondent also entered the witness-box and deposed that the land was purchased by the respondents for Rs. 60,000 and that the entire consideration was paid to the vendor.
3. In rebuttal the appellants examined Muhammad Munir Patwari P. W. 2 who produced the five yearly average Exh. P. W. 4 according to which the price per acre was worked out at Rs. 2,418.
Muhammad Ramzan P. W. 3 who identified the respondents before the Revenue Officer was also produced by them. He stated that no amount was paid in his presence by the vendees to the vendor. Syed Abid Hussain appellant also appeared as his own witness but he was neither present at the time of negotia--petition nor when the mutation was attested.
4. The learned trial Judge discarded the average price list Exh. P. 4 on the ground that it neither contained the particulars of the classifica--petition of the land nor it showed the situation of the mentioned therein, qua the. Land in dispute;. He was influenced by the payment of Rs. 40,000 at the time of registration of the agreement Exh. D.
1. Likewise he accepted the respondents' contention as to the payment of Rs. 20,000 before the Revenue Officer. -He believed the witness of the respondents. In his opinion they successfully proved the payment of the sale price of Rs. 60,000. He also referred to the mutations Exhs. D. 2, D. 3 and D. 5 and maintained that on the basis of these mutations, the market price was almost the same as paid by the respondents. In view of his these findings he answered Issue No. 9 in favour of the respondents and held that the sale price was fixed as Rs. 60,000 and actually paid.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial Judge wrongly relied on the agreement Exh. D. 1 for proof of receipt of Rs. 40,000 by the vendor. It was submitted that the amount was not counted by the Sub-Registrar himself and that the endorsement made by him on the back of Exh. D. 1 merely carried a rebuttably presumption, which was dislodged by the evidence on the record and referred to Wahid Bukhsh v. Muhammad Shafi (1). It was further submitted that the-, original mutation was not before D. W. 2 and. Therefore, his testimony which was made with reference to the copy of the mutation Exh. D. 4 was not: of any evidentiary value. In the 'submission of the learned counsel, making mention of payment of Rs. 20,000 to the vendor, in the proceedings recorded by the Revenue Officer while sanctioning the mutation, was not his statutory obligation and, therefore, the trial Court's reliance on these proceedings as a proof of payment of consideration, was misconceived.' Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel on the five yearly average Exh. P. 4 and it was submitted that since the market price of the land was far below the price claimed to have been paid, an inference that such payment was fictitious could rightly be drawn. In support of his submission he referred to Khadim Hussain and others v. Ghulab (PLD 19.54 Lab. 471
6. On behalf of the respondents it was mainly contended that the endorsement of the Sub- Registrar and the mutation-attestation proceedings apart, the. Actual payment of consideration was proved by the evidence of the witnesses examined by them, who were believed by the learned trial Judge. It was argued that the five yearly average Exh-. P: 4 was not at all reliable, as it did not disclose the classification of the land comprised in the mutations included therein. The learned counsel also relied on the sale price witnessed by Mutations Exh. D. 2 to Exh. D. 5.
7. We have examined the record in the light of the s4bmissions made by the learned counsel fur the parties. ' Out of the sale price of Rs. 60,000, a sum of Rs. 40,000 4as shown to. Have been paid before the Sues-Registrar and the, remaining Rs. 20,000 received by the vender at the time of attestation of the mutation. To establish the payment of Rs. 40 the respondents have. Relied on the agreement Exh. D. 1 and the testimony f two marginal witnesses namely Faiz Ahmad and Noor Muhammad. Bot S of them stated that the amount in question was paid to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar, in their presence. Under section 58 of the Registration Act, the Registering Officer among other things had to endorse on the document admitted to regis--tration, any payment of money made in his presence, and any admission o consideration, with reference to the execution of the document. It is correct that the presumption attached to the endorsement made by the Registering Officer is rebuttable. The view taken in Wahid Bakhsh's case is also to the same effect.
The appellants, however, have not brought any reliable material on the record to rebut this presumption. Their entire evidence consisted of Exh. P. 4, the deposition of Muhammad Ramzan P.
W. 3 and l Abid Hussain appellant's own statement. None of them was present at the time of registration of Exh. D.
1. The appellants have nowhere alleged much less to prove that the money passed on to the vendor, before the Sub-Registrar was less than Rs. 40,000. On the other hand, the factum of this pa3rment is established by the statement of D. Ws. Whether or not the amount was counted by the Sub-Registrar himself is not of much significance: We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for respondents that the learned trial's Judge findings as to the payment of Rs.
40,000 is founded on, the proof of actual payment and not on the presumptive evidence of the Sub-egistrar's endorsement Exb. D. 1.
8. The payment of Rs. 20,000 at the time of attestation of Mutation Exh. D. 4 is also proved by the statements of D. Ws. While attesting a mutation, under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which was in force when Mutation Exh. D. 4 was sanctioned, the nature of inquiry was largely left to the discretion of the Revenue Officer and he had to act in accordance with the facts proved or admitted by the parties before him. No law was produced before us to show that the Revenue Officer in recording the factum of payment of consideration, travelled beyond his statutory obliga- -petition. The sanction of the mutation with the consent of the parties, coupled with the statements of the D. Ws. In whose presence a sum of Rs. 20,000 was paid to the vendor, casts a heavy burden on the appellants to prove that the proceedings recorded by the Revenue Officer were not correct.
Their only witness Muhammad Ramzan P. W. 3 stated that he merely identified the parties and that the vendor on being questioned by the Revenue Officer admitted the payment of consideration. In our view, the learned trial Court rightly held that the payment was proved. The non-1 production of original mutation does not militate against the evidentiary value of the statement of the Revenue Officer who appeared as D. W.
2. The mutation Exh. D. 4 was admissible in evidence, the production by the respondents, of .The Revenue Officer, as .Their witness, was merely and act of superarogation.
9. We have examined the five yearly average Exb. p.
4. It does not make mention of the classification of the land on the basis of the sale transaction whereof, the palwari calculated the price per acre of Rs. 2,418. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Judge in not placing reliance on, Exh. P. 4 are well grounded. In Khadim Hussain V. Ghulab, relied upon by the appellant's learned counsel it was proved as a fact, that the market price of the land was much below the price claimed to have beer paid by the vendee. Besides this, some other circumstances also obtained in that case, which led to the inference that the payment witnesssd by the sale deed, was not genuine. In the instant case there is overwhelming evidence that the price of Rs. 60,000 was fixed in good faith and actually paid. It was, therefore, not necessary' for the learned trial Court to have determined the market value of the land. The ruling in Khadim Hussain's case is of no avail to the appellants.
10. For all these reasons we affirm the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and the appeal having been found without merit, is hereby dismissed with costs.