' This second appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents. The learned trial Court decreed the suit against the appellants on payment of Rs, 25,000 as sale consideration vide judgment and decree dated 30th Iuly, 1964. Feeling aggrieved thereby, both the parties (i. e.
Vendees as well as pre-emptors) assailed that decree of the trial Court in appeal before the learned District Judge. The vendees filed an appeal challenging the correctness of findings of the trial Court regarding the superiority of pre-emption right while pre-emptor challenged the finding of the learned trial Court regarding the fixation of sale consideration as Rs, 25,000. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 6th June 1965, whereby the appeal filed by Muhammad Hayat Shah pre-emptor was accepted, holding Rs, 21,135 as the sale price of the suit land while the appeal filed by Noor Khan, etc., vendee/defendants was dismissed.
1 The vendees/defendants have assailed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court to the extent of determination of sale consideration in this second appeal and prayed for the restoration of filing of the trial Court on issue No, 4, according to which Rs, 25,000 were fixed as the sale price of the suit land.
3. The sole question which requires adjudication in this appeal is whether the finding of the learned lower appellate Court fixing Rs, 21,135 as sale price of the suit land is erroneous and liable to be set aside in the appeal.
4. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions pressed by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and scanned the evidence adduced on the file. From the perusal of the file it is manifestly clear that the learned lower appellate Court while modifying the finding of the learned trial Corrt on issue No, 4, solely relied upon two instances of sale contained in Exh. P. 9 and P. 10 which are the certified copies of mutations of the sale being Nos. 182 and 183, respectively and relate to transactions of sale by means of respective registered sale-deeds dated 13th April, 1960 and 22nd April, 1960 pertaining to some agricultural land recorded in Khewat Nos. 14 to 18, 21 and 22. The impugned mutation of sale bearing No, 186 was attested on 18th September, 1961, i,e, 1 years after the attestation of Exh. P. 9 and Exh. P. 10, with regard to the suit land located in a different Kbewat bearing No, 24 in the same village.
5. There is no evidence on the record to infer that the lands sold through Exh. P. 9 and Exh. P. 10 were similar in nature to the suit land and were situated in the neighbourhood. According to section 27
(e) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the value of the similar land or property in the neighbourhood may be considered as one of the factors to determine the market value of pre-empted land or property. As Exh. P. 9 and Exh. P. 10 do not pertain to land similar to suit land, therefore, these instances of sale undoubtedly do not furnish a safe and sound criteria for the determination of the market value of the suit land. Moreover, sales vide Exh. P. 9 and Exh. P. 10 were struck off 11 year earlier to the impugned sale vide mutation No,
186. Therefore, these sales which were earlier in time should not have been considered by the learned appellate Court as valid standard for judging the market value of the suit land which was the subject-matter of a later transaction since in the present economic set up prices of land, etc. Like other things are not constant and stable but are increasing day by day.
' The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit land was sold for Rs, 25,000 but the learned lower appellate Court while relying upon the instances of earlier sales vide Exh. P. 9 and Exh. 10 reduced the sale consideration by Rs, 3,865 in appeal without keeping in view the time factor. He utterly failed to take the note of the hard fact that during the intervening period of one and a half years which elapsed between the aforesaid earlier sales and the impugned sale, the price of suit land like other things would have usually increased, at least, by the amount reduced in appeal i. e.
Rs, 3,865.
6. Apart from this, the learned lower appellate Court ignored the oral evidence adduced by the appellant on the record without any legal justification. There is nothing on the record to discard the testimony of D. W. 2 Patwari Haiqa, and D. W. 3 Manager of the vendor who unequivocally stated that the suit land was mutated on payment of Rs, 25,000 as sale consideration. In view of what has been discussed above. 1, therefore, conclude that the finding of the learned lower appellate Court on Issue No, 4 is absolutely erroneous and is not based upon any evidence and the same is set aside. I also hold that the suit land was sold in consideration of Rs, 25,000. The appeal resultantly, is hereby accepted and the respondents are directed to further deposit Rs, 3,865 as outstanding sale price with the trial Court till 22nd January, 1980 failing that their suit shall stand dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.