The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement dated 11-8-1.973, executed by the latter, for the sale of the land in dispute to him, for a consideration of Rs.35,000. The respondent's case is that the appellant instituted a pre-emption suit which was decreed in his favour and he had to deposit a sum of Rs.84,000 as pre-emption money in the Court : as he was short of funds, he entered into an agreement with the respondent, for the sale of part of the land, in respect whereof the decree was passed in his favour. That a mutation Exh. P. 6 was got entered evidence this transaction but it was cancelled, as before the Revenue Officer, the appellant contended that out of sale price of Rs.35,000 only Rs.25,500 were paid to him and that the possession was also not delivered to the respondent.
2. Before the learned trial Court, the appellant contested the suit and denied the agreement. The respondent examined Muhammad Ramzan (P. W. 2), the petition writer and Mannu (P. W. 3) the marginal witness of the agreement Exh. P.
2. Besides this, he also appeared in the witness box. On the other hand the appellant produced two witnesses and took up the plea that the agreement aforesaid was based on fraud. The learned Civil Judge fully discussed the evidence of the parties.
He believed the respondent's evidence and discarded that of the appellant. The fact that the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.84,000 in the Court on 13-8-1973 and whereas the agreement was executed on 11-8-1973 heavily weighed with the learned Civil Judge. He held that the appellant was in need of money and entered into the deal in question with the respondent to raise the funds. He was also influenced by the documentary evidence Exhs. P-1 to P-9 produced by the respondent, to establish that he sold his own land, two months before this deal and collected money for payment to the appellant under the agreement. Reference was also made by the learned Civil Judge to the mutation Exh. P. 6 to hold that before the Revenue Officer, the appellant took up the stand that full consideration was not paid to him but did not deny the execution of the agreement and whereas in the civil Court, he came forth with altogether a different plea and controverted the agreement.
Thus by his judgment dated 14-1-1979, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in respondent's favour. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were maintained by the learned First Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge who was seized of the appeal maintained that the agreement being a registered document would entail presumption that it was executed by the appellant.
3. The validity of the judgment and decree dated 16-6-1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge has been called in question through this R. S. A. , .
4. The first submission of the petitioner's learned counsel was that the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in basing his decision on the presumption. In his submission no such presumption could be raised as to the expectation of the agreement.
5. The objection is misconceived. The concurrent finding of the Courts below that the agreement Exh. P 2, was executed by the appellant and that consideration of Rs.35,000 was paid to him, are founded on the material a 11lable on the file. It was on appreciation of the evidence on the record that learned Courts below decided issue No. 2 relating to the execution of the u.;: cement, in favour of the respondent. This is a finding of fact wit which there can be no quarrel in second appeal. The effect of the registration of the agreement, may have been little overstated by the learned Additional District Judge but the observation made by him do not denude the impugned judgment and decree of their legal efficacy. A reference to section 60 of the Registration Act will provide that the Court has got to presume that facts mentioned in the "endorsement" regarding registration did occur. Section 60 when read with section 58 would lead to the presumption, as to the execution of Exh. P. 2 by the appellant.
6. It was next argued that there is no evidence regarding payment of Rs.35,000 to the appellant by the respondent. This argument is also without any substance. The averment made in the agreement that a sum of Rs.35,000 was paid to the appellant, is corroborated by oral evidence adduced by the respondent. It was within the competence of the learned Courts below to believe or disbelieve any piece of evidence. As observed above, the evidence adduced by the respondent including his own testimony was considered trustworthy by the learned lower Courts. What the learned counsel reaps. Wants is re-appraisal of evidence for which there is no scope in second.
Appeal.
It was next argued that the proceedings recorded in Mutation Exh. P. 6 by the Revenue Officer, could not be used against the petitioner as a piece of evidence. This argument also does not deserve any serious consideration Exh. P. 6, being a public document, was. Receivable in evidence, to prove the facts stated therein and was admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel having found without any substance,. This R. S. A.
Is hereby dismissed in limine.