' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondents, ' Sher Muhammad and others, against the petitioners, Hassan Din and others, for possession of certain land through pre-emption. The land was purchased by the petitioners by means of oral sale which was followed by mutation. In the mutation the sale price was mentioned as rs1,11,000. It was, however, pleaded by the respondents that the sale had, in fact, taken place for rs11,000 but the sale price was fictitiously mentioned as rs1,11,000 in the mutation, with a view to defeating pre- emptive rights. The suit was resisted by the petitioners inter alia, on the ground that it was time- barred. They also refuted the respondents' averment that the sale price of rs1,11,000 had not been actually paid. Plea of the respondents relating to sale price found favour with the Civil Judge who decided the suit. He did not find the suit time-barred. Resultantly, it was decreed by him on payment of rs1,11,000. Petitioners went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.
2. Only two findings of the learned trial Court have been assailed before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. They are in respect of their plea of limitation and assertion with regard to the payment of rs1,11,000 as sale of price.
3. As for the question of limitation, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that mutation relating to the sale in dispute was attested on' 7th November,1967 but the suit was instituted on 8th November,1968. According to him, in view of the provisions of section 30 of the Punjab Preemption Act,1913, last date for filing of the suit was 7th November,1967 but as the suit was not brought even on the last date, it deserved to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. I have seen the original plaint filed in this case and find that the suit was instituted on 7th November, 1968.
Thus, even according to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners it was filed in time. In the circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the A concurrent finding of the learned lower Courts to the effect that the suit was within time.
5. This brings me to the question of sale price. The respondents' plea is that when the mutation was entered the sale price was mentioned as rs11,000 in column 12 of the relevant register but, subsequently, the record was tampered with and figure "1" was added before the figures "11000". It was also urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the land in dispute was Sailabi land inasmuch as it was amenable to onslaughts of the river Ravi and, therefore, it was not worth rs1,11,000. In this connection, he invited my attention to copies of relevant documents, namely Exhs.
P.1 to P.3 in which the land in question is shown as Sailabi. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, that record was not tampered with as aforesaid and that it was admitted by the vendee, namely, Muhammad Sharif, before the said Revenue Officer that he had received rs1,11,000 as sale price' of the land in dispute. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the said price had been fixed in good faith and also actually paid. Respondents' plea with regard to tampering with the record finds support from observations of the learned Civil Judge who decided the suit. He examined the original entries and made following remarks in his judgment:- "I have the benefit of careful perusal of the original record and column No,12 of the impugned mutation where the price is mentioned in figures. It is very clear that the figure on which makes the amount one lakh was incorporated later on by any way. The original way by which one lakh eleven thousands must have been written is not proved. The disputed figure differs with the other figures and it is clear that first of all the price was incorporated eleven thousand and later on to make lakh figure one was incorporated by any way. To support my opinion, I would like to say that if the figure Rs,1,11,000.00 is going to be written, first of all three figures one and then three zeros will be incorporated. Therefore, there is no idea that the ink of the first figure one should be different from the other figures and the first figure one should be written out of line and by this way as it is evident on the record.
' In the same column the price is written in words. First of all the word is Bai then oral then in consideration then {{URDU TEXT}}yak lakh then eleven thousands. The dispute is of yak lakh. Here again the handwriting and the ink of word yak lakh is different with the other words. Moreover, the space which is left between the other words such as between Bai and oral has not been left in word {{URDU TEXT}}' "&fr ' and eleven thousands, so it is clear that between these two words the word yak lakh was incorporated later on,. In order to make the price one lakh and eleven thousand. These observations, obviously, raise doubt with regard to the sale price claimed by the petitioner."
6. It is also evident from Exhs. P.1 to P.3 that the land in question is not of superior quality and, therefore, the mere fact that its area was 37 acres would not justify a conclusion that it had been actually sold for rs1,11,000 and that too in 1967 when the land was not as costly as in these days.
7. Whether or not the sale price of rs1,11,000 was actually paid or fixed in good faith is a question of fact on which there is concurrent finding of the learned lower Courts. No misreading or non- reading of evidence or any other defect warranting interference with that finding was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. In view of what has gone above, I am unable to interfere with the unanimous verdict of the learned lower Courts with regard to the sale price.
9. There is no force in this civil revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.