' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19-1-1984, by which Ch. Muhammad Rafique Majithia, Additional District Judge-II,' Muzaffargarh, accepting the appeal of Muhammad ' Saeed defendant-respondent (vendee), set aside the judgment and decree, dated 26-6-1983, passed by Malik Zulfiqar Ali, Civil Judge 1st class, Alipur, whereby the pre-emption suit of Qasim All plaintiff-petitioner (pre-emptor) was decreed.
2. A piece of land measuring 12 kanals 1 marla situated in the revenue estate of Mauza Dammarwali Shumali, Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, was sold by Mst. Sakina, daughter of Noor Muhammad, to Muhammad Saeed defendant-respondent by a registered sale-deed, dated 2-7-1977, for an ostensible sale price of Rs,3,000. Qasim Ali plaintiff-petitioner claiming himself to be a co-sharer in the suit khata and an owner in the estate brought a suit against Muhammad Saeed defendant- respondent to pre-empt the sale. He alleged that in fact the land had been sold for a sum of Rs,1,500 but to ward off pre-emptors an inflated amount of Rs,3,000 was inserted in the sale-deed.
2. The defendant-respondent, in his written statement, besides pleading waiver, limitation and objecting to the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction alleged that in fact a sum of Rs,6,000 had been paid as the sale price of the disputed property but with a view to save registration expenses the price of Rs,3,000 was inserted in the sale-deed. He denied the claim of his opponent regarding the superior right of pre-emption.
3. The pleadings of the parties gave rise the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption qua the defendant? OPP (1-A) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption for his act and conduct? OPD (1-B) Whether the value of the suit for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrect and the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
(2) Whether the sale price of Rs,6,000 was fixed in good faith .Or actually paid? OPP
(3) If issue No,2 is not proved what is the market value of the suit land at the time of sale?
Opparties.
(4) Relief.
4. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel, the learned trial Judge decided issue Nos.1-A and 1-B 'against the defendant-respondent and issue No,1 in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. With regard to issue No,2, he came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs,3,000 as entered in the sale-deed was the correct sale price of the land. Consequently issue No,3, which related to market value of the disputed property, did not necessitate any decision. As a result of these findings he decreed the suit on the payment of Rs,3,000 as pre-emption money. Aggrieved by this decision the defendant-respondent (vendee) preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Muzaffargarh. Ch. Muhammad Rafique Majithia, the learned Additional District Judge-II Muzaffargarh, to whom the appeal was entrusted for disposal, by his judgment and decree now under challenge in this revision, accepting the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree, dated 26-6-1983, of the trial Court and dismissed the suit after reversing its findings on issue No,1 and modifying its findings on issue No,2 by coming to the conclusion that a sum of Rs,6,000 was the sale price of the suit land. Dissatisfied with these findings of the learned District Judge, the plaintiff-petitioner came up in revision to this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner calls in question the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issues Nos.1 and 2 only. He submits that the plaintiff-petitioner had purchased a piece of land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla in suit Khata No,732 from the same vendor Mst. Sikina vide registered sale-deed, dated 28-4-1977, and as held in Muhammad Muzaffar .Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan (PLD 1959 SC 9) he had superior pre-emptive rights on the basis of co-owner in the suit Khata as compared to the defendant-respondent who was only an owner in the estate. He has also quoted Muhammad Hussain v. Hassan Muhammad (PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 122) a decision of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent is of the view that the plaintiff-petitioner had purchased specific Khasra numbers though from the suit khata or khewat and he did not become co-sharer in the suit land. He has, however, not been able to refer to any case law.
7. The purchase of even specific khasra numbers in a joint Khata or Khewat, as held in the aforesaid authorities, made the vendee a co-sharer in the joint property for all intents on purposes and since plaintiff-petitioner was already a co-sharer in the suit land on the basis of the sale transaction embodied in the registered sale-deed, dated 28-4-1977, he had definitely superior right of pre- emption as compared to that of his opponent who did not possess such qualifications. The learned Additional District Judge taking an erroneous view of the law on the subject, wrongly upset the findings of the trial Court on issue No,1 and the same are now reversed and those of the trial Court restored.
8. Likewise, his findings on issue No,2 are not sustainable. The sale price of the Rs,3,000 stood entered in the registered sale-deed embodying the sale transaction in question. The defendant- respondent, who is party to this document, cannot wriggle out of his own admission about the sale price on the plea of saving the registration expenses, which too was an act unwarranted by law besides being unethical. B He cannot be allowed to put premium on his cleverness and deception to side-track the law of registration and to undervalue the transaction to the detriment of public coffer. Therefore, reversing the findings of the appellate Court below on issue No,2, I hold that a sum of Rs,3,000 was the sale price of the suit land fixed in good faith and paid to the vendor.
9. In view of my findings on issues Nos.1 and 2, the revision is accepted, the judgment and decree, dated 19-1-1984 of the learned Additional District Judge, are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. If the plaintiff-petitioner has not so far deposited the full pre-emption money of Rs,3,000 for his opponent, he may do so within a month failing which his suit shall stand dismissed.