' The relevant facts for the decision of present revision are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 183 Kanals and 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Dakhli Mian Pur Mothim, Tehesil Lodhran, District Multan through registered sale-deed dated 29-12-1975 for a total consideration of Rs,1,25,000. The respondents filed suit to pre-empt this sale. They claimed superior right as co- sharers and owners of the estate. The petitioners contested the suit. The trial Court framed following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(2) Whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrect? OPD.
(3) Whether the order of the Court with regard to deposit of zare-panjum and making up deficiency in court-fee has not been complied with? OPD.
(4) Whether the description of the suit land is incorrect? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file their suit? OPD.
(6) Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre-emption? OPP
(7) Whether ostensible sale price was fixed in good faith or actually paid? OPD
(8) What was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? OPPs
(9) Whether the defendants have effected improvements upon the suit land? If so, to what extent?
OPD
(10) Relief.
' The following additional issue was added on 4-10-1978:- (1-A) Whether the suit is for partial pre- emption? OPD ' The parties led their respective evidence and the trial Court after hearing the arguments proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20-11-1982. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Muitan who accepted the appeal and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21-3-1984. In this background, this revision petition has been filed by the vendees.
2. The petition was admitted to hearing and notice issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and supported the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has only disputed findings on issues Nos.2 and 6. In support of the revision he has argued that according to para. No,8 of the plaint value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs,1,25,000 and that valuation was never amended by the respondents and the same was incorporated in the decree-sheet. Therefore, the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. While on the issue No,6 it was argued that the respondents did not have a superior right as the petitioners were tenants of the land. It is added that the lower appellate Court wrongly brushed aside the evidence of the petitioners in this behalf and also illegally referred to the record, which was not formally included in the evidence of the parties. It is explained that during the pendency of the appeal, the lower appellate court sent for Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi and referred to the same without placing the same on record and allowing the petitioners to explain the position with reference to his record.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the determination of the valuation is the duty of the Court and same was rightly determined by the lower appellate Court.
Since the value as worked out by the lower appellate Court came to Rs,4,080, therefore, the lower appellate Court had jurisdiction. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to cases of Sadar Din v. Elahi Baldish and another (PLD 1976 Lah. 1), Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Balqees and others (PLD 1985 SC 393), Suba Khan v. Rehmat Din and 2 others (1980 CLC 589), Mumtaz Begum v. Ch. Zulfiqar All (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 1088), Noor Muhammad and 3 others v. Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 8 others (PLD 1980 Lah. 471) and Muqarrah Khan v. Muhammad Anwar Khan and 10 others (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Pesh. 228).
5. On the other issue, it was argued that the petitioners have failed to prove that they all were tenants of all the Khasra numbers. Therefore, they cannot defend the suit collectively on ground of tenancy. It is added that they were not recorded tenants at the relevant time but subsequently to meet the claim of the respondents they got the revenue record tampered with. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to case of Muhammad Safdar Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others (1980 CLC 520).
6. I have given ray anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, gone through the record, precedents and relevant provisions of law. Now I deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to counter arguments of the other side and the relevant law.
7. The first argument was that since the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction as mentioned in the plaint and decree sheet was Rs,1,25,000, therefore, the District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. The valuation was subject-matter of issue No,2. The trial Court did not record any finding in spite of dear issue while tne lower appellate Court has dealt with the matter elaborately. It observed that the suit land is permanently assessed to land revenue at the rate of Rs,68 and multiplying this figure by 60, the value for purposes of jurisdiction was worked out at Rs,4,080. Therefore, the appeal was competent before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has also referred the case of Noor Muhammad and 3 others v. Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 8 others (PLD 1980 Lah, 471). The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any factual or legal defect in these findings. He only emphasised the entry in the plaint and decree-sheet. Same are irrelevant in view of the determination made by the lower appellate Court.
8. This brings us to the main issue as to whether the petitioners were tenants and therefore respondents have no superior right and their suit was wrongly decreed by the lower appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners were recorded as tenants as is clear from copies of the Khasra Girdawari Exhs.D.2 and D.4. The respondents during the pendency of the suit, tried to get these entries annulled and for that purpose they moved an application before the Collector for correction of the Khasra Girdawari by deleting the names of the petitioners. This application was sent to the Naib-Tehsildar, who formulated his report on 10-10-1978 and submitted it to the Collector. The report is Exh.D.6 while the order of Collector is dated 18-8- 1980 and Exh.D.7. It is maintained that after having failed to get the entries reversed, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to brand the entries in the Khasra Girdawari as doutful. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate that according to Land Record Manual, the change in possession is to be reflected by making entries in record which are to be backed up by entries in Roznamcha Waqiati. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to para. 9.9 and para. 7.41 of the Land Record Manual. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the lower appellate Court rightly held that the petitioners-defendants were not tenants of the suit land. The relevant portion of the judgment referred to by him reads as under:-- "There can be no other conclusion than that the mention of the defendants in the original Register of Khasra Girdawari are later interpolations and to give these the colour of authenticity the names of the defendants were carried forward in the Record-of-Rights i,e, Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 though the entries of their names were made in red ink for which there is no instruction or precedent in the Revenue History of the Province. I, therefore, conclude that the names of the defendants have been interpolated later on in the revenue record and the defendants cannot take any advantage of the same."
9. There is a merit in the grievance of the petitioners that the lower appellate Court if not satisfied with the evidence on record then should have recorded the statements of the concerned officials may be as C.Ws. This way the petitioners could have availed the opportunity to explain their viewpoint. The learned lower appellate Court was therefore ill-advised to go through the part of the original record without bringing the same on record. The difficulty is that this Court cannot, while deciding this revision petition, take into consideration the record on which the learned lower appellate Court has based is not part of the proceedings. Even otherwise, the criticism of the learned lower appellate Court seems to be misconceived for the following reasons: Firstly, the Revenue Authorities have upheld the entries of Khasra Girdawari as genuine that too in the proceedings intitiated by the repondents/plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it is the Revenue Authorities alone which can deal with the entries in the Khasra Girdawari. The learned counsel in this behalf has relied on the case of Haji etc. v. MBR etc. (1984 CLC 1167).
' Secondly, the findings recorded by the Collector in his order dated 18-8-1980 were not challenged by the plaintiffs in higher forum and the same could not have been set aside by the Civil Court indirectly; and ' Thirdly, that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari were made strictly in accordance with the provisions of Land Record Manual. According to the instructions contained in para. 9.9 a change in the cultivation during the preparation of Jamabandi is to be recorded in the Roznamcha and entry in the relevant column of Khasra Girdawari is to be made in red ink. These safeguards have been provided in order to weed out incorrect entries. It is also provided in para. 7.41 that if two different cultivators cultivate two different crops in a field then the name of the cultivator for the Rabi crop is to be recorded in red ink below the name of the cultivator of the Kharif crop and separate Khatooni is not to be prepared.
10. The Jamabandi is prepared in two parts. One which is retained by the Patwari is called Parat Patwar' while the other which is kept in office of the Qanungo is called Parat Sarkar'. This measure has also been adopted to stop possibility of any interpolation by the Patwari subsequently. The respondents if felt some wrong with the record in possession of the Patwari, then they should have summoned the Parat Sarkar' from Qanungo. This is not all, the Canal Department prepared and maintained its own Khasra Girdawari, which also supported the petitioners. The record has been prepared strictly in accordance with the law and instructions. There is no possibility of introducing the names of the petitioners as tenants at a later stage through underhand means. The statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are to be excluded for the simple reason that the report Exh.D.1 was prepared with their assistance. This was considered and order passed by the Collector. Now they cannot be allowed to set aside the order of the Collector by making a concessional statement.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed, judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the lower Court is restored. The result is that the suit of the respondents shall remain dismisse.