' This Civil Revision arises from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari whereby he partly accepted the appeal filed by Allah Bakhsh petitioner/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 1980, passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Mailsi decreeing the suit for possession by pre-emption filed by Ghulam Rasul respondent against Allah Bakhsh petitioner herein.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that Allah Bakhsh petitioner purchased land measuring 4 kanals from Allah Ditta for an ostensible sale price of Rs, 15,000 through registered sale deed dated 20th August, 1977. Ghulam Rasul respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of his superior right as a collateral of the vendor and a co- sharer, alleging therein that the land was, in fact, sold for Rs, 8,000. One Zahoor Ahmad a rival preemptor, also filed a pre-emption suit, both the suits were, however, consolidated and the present petitioner contested both the suits. The pleadings gave rise to the following issues :-
(1) Whether the violation for purposes of Court Fee is incorrect in suits. If so, what is the correct valuation ? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No, 2 have waived the right of pre-emption ? OD.
(3) Whether the vendee defendant has carried out any improvement over the suit property, if so, its extent, value and effect ? OD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff and defendant No, 2 have got superior right of pre-emption as against the defendant ? OD (OP).
(5) Who among the rival pre-emptor has got superior right of preemption inter se ? OP.
(6) Whether Rs, 15,000 were fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale price of the suit property ?
OD.
(7) What was the market value of the suit property at the time of sale ? OPP.
(8) Relief.
3. Issue No, 1 was found in negative, issues Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against vendees/defendants, issues Nos. 4 and 5 were decided in favour of respondents/pre-emptor, issue No, 6 was decided in favour of the vendees. It was held that Rs, 15,000 were fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale price of the suit property at the time of sale. Issue No, 7, in view of the findings on issue No, 6, this issue was not called for. As a result of these findings the suit was decreed in favour of Ghulam Rasul respondent herein for Rs, 15,000.
4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Vehari which was entrusted to the learned Addl. District Judge who vide his judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1982 partly accepted same by setting aside the decree for possession to the extent of two kanals. He held that Ghulam Rasul pre-emptor had a superior right of pre-emption over 1/2 of the sold property and allowed the pre-emptor to withdraw Rs 7,500 already deposited by him as a sale price of the entire suit land. Still not satisfied, the vendee has filed the present petition.
5. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No, 4 whereby he declared that Ghulam Rasul respondent had a superior right of pre-emption over 2 kanals of land. The learned counsel contends tha A the petitioner vendee was, in fact, a tenant over the entire land of Allah Ditta vendor and as such he should have been treated as a tenant of the entire 4 kanals. To substantiate his submission he has relied upon statement of DW-1 Allah Bakhsh. I have gone through the copy of the statement placed on record by the petitioner. I find that Allah Bakhsh petitioner as DW-1 in cross-examination has clearly stated: {{URDU TEXT}} ' I am of the view that the petitioner is at least bound by his statement. The learned counsel while referring to the other portion of the statement of this witness has vehemently argued that the portion of the statement reproduced above has wrongly been recorded and in any case there is some ambiguity. I have considered this argument. I am inclined to observe that a presumption of truth is attached to the record prepared by the Court and as such it cannot be believed that the above statement was wrongly recorded by the Court. For the ambiguity I find that the right of re- examination to clarify the ambiguity, if any, was available to the learned counsel for the petitioner but he did not make any attempt to resolve the so-called ambiguity.
Issue No, 4 is more or less an issue of facts. The learned Additional District Judge has applied his mind to the legal and factual aspects of the matter and has given sound reasons in support of his- conclusion and as such he has exercised the jurisdiction legally and properly.
6. For what has been stated above there is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed in limine.