' This appeal against the appellate decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dated the 23rd July, 1971, affirming the decree of the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, dated the 23rd December, 1970, whereby the respondent's suit against the appellants for possession by pre- emption of 27 Kanals 10 Marlas of the land in dispute situated in the area of village Sigh Maufi, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, was decreed on payment of Rs.7,000 arises out of the following circum stances. The appellants purchased the land in question from Salehon, Ghulam Muhammad and Saeed Ahmad, sons of Raja, by means of deed of sale, Exh.D.1, which was executed on the 22nd and registered on the 29th September, 1964. The respondent, whose superiority of pre-emptive right is beyond dispute, alleged that the sale had taken place for Rs.7,000 but an exaggerated amount of Rs.15,000 had been described as sale price in the deed. He averred that the market value of the land was no more than Rs.7,000. The appellants, on the other hand, maintained that Rs.15,000 had been fixed in good faith and paid as sale consideration of the suit land and that the same amount represented its market value. The learned trial and the appellate Courts below recorded concurrent finding that Rs.8,000 out of Rs.15,000 paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale-deed had been received back by the appellants soon after coming out of the office of the Sub-Registrar. They noticed that the market value of the land did not exceed Rs.7,000. The suit in the circumstances was decreed on payment of Rs.7,000 and the decision of the learned trial Court was upheld in appeal.
2. The point argued before this Court was whether Rs.15,000 had been fixed in good faith or paid as the sale price of the land or any portion of the sale consideration had been returned by the vendors to the appellants after registration of the sale-deed.
3. The learned Courts below have believed the testimony of Dr. Mumtaz Hayat, P.W .2, who identified the parties before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale-deed as also the evidence of Muhammad Yusuf, Lambardar, P.W.3, and Ghulam Dastgir, P.W.4, who were considered to be reliable witnesses, to hold that after registration of the sale-deed was over the vendors paid back Rs.8,000 to the appellants. Dr. Mumtaz Hayat, P.W.2, is a medical practitioner and was the Chairman of Union Committee I, Bhera, when the sale-deed was registered. Muhammad Yusuf, Lambardar, P.W.3, was present in connection with identification of parties of another sale-deed. He bore out that Rs.8,000 had been returned after the registration of the sale-deed. Ghulam Dastgir, P.W.4, confirmed it. Muhammad Hayat, P.W.5, brother of Ghulam Dastgir, P.W.4, stated that the bargain of sale of the land in dispute had been settled in his Baithak for Rs.7,000 and that Rs.8,000 were to be returned. The learned Courts were not inclined to accept at face value the deposition of Salehon, D.W.1, who also identified the parties at the time of registration of the sale-deed that the bargain of sale of the land in dispute had been struck for Rs.15,000 and that the same amount had been paid because he and his son were involved in criminal litigation with Ghulam Dastgir, P.W.4, who was father's brother's son of the respondent. Though Ghulam Dastgir, P.W.4, and Muhammad Hayat, P.W.5, are related to the respondent yet Doctor Mumtaz Hayat, P.W.2, and Muhammad Yusuf, Lambardar, P.W.3, are disinterested witnesses. There was nothing wrong with the learned Courts to believe their evidence in preference to that of Salehon, D.W.1, who bore hostility against the family of the respondent.
4. The learned Courts demonstrated the correctness of the view touching of Rs.8,000 by the vendors to the appellants after registration of the sale-deed by the facts that the market value of the land in dispute as worked out on the basis of the average price of the land situated in village Sigh Muafi given in the Fard Aust Panjsala, Exh.P.1 (Rs.1,585 per Acre), was less than 'Rs.7,000 and backing out of the appellants from the determination of the market value of the land in question by the Local Commissioner. The learned trial Court, on the 1st April, 1969, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appointed a Local Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the disputed land. However, on the 5th April, 1969, the appellants applied for rescission of the order of appointment of the Local Commissioner on the ground that they had not instructed their counsel to agree to the appointment. The Local Commissioner did not do anything.
5. In the circumstances of the case the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts is not found to be the result of any misreading of evidence. It was permissible for them to form the view which they chose to adopt. Therefore, there is no justification for interference with their decision.
This appeal is without any force and is dismissed with costs.