' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondents, Sher Muhammad and others against one Ali Bakhsh, for possession of certain land through pre-emption. The land was purchased by All Bakhsh by means of oral sale which was followed by mutation. In the mutation the sale price was mentioned as rs40,200. It was, however, pleaded by the respondents that the sale had, in fact, taken place for rs4,200 but the sale price was fictitiously mentioned as rs40,200, in the mutation, with a view to defeat pre-emptive rights. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the grounds that it was time-barred and that the sale price of rs40,200 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 rs4,200.
It appears that All Bakhsh died after the decision of the suit, therefore, the petitioners, Muhammad Sharif and others, who are predecessors-in-interest of All Bakhsh, 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 the plea of limitation and assertion with regard to the payment of rs40,200 as sale 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 concurrent finding of the learned lower Courts to the effect that the suit was within time.
4. 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 rs4,200 in column 12 of the relevant register but, subsequently, the record was tampered with and a zero was added before the figures " 2 ". It was also urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the land in dispute was Sailabi and inasmuch as it was amenaole to onslaughts of the river Ravi and, therefore, it was not worth rs40,200. In this contention, 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 rs40,200 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.
5. 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 this record. In columns Nos.12 and 14 of the impugned mutation where the price is mentioned in figures it is very clear that the 'Zero' which makes the amount rs40,200 was added later on by any way. The original space which must have been left while writing rs40,200 is not there. It is clear that this 'Zero' was incorporated' to make it rs40,200. To support my opinion I would like to say that if the figure rs40,200 is going to be written, first of all the figure 'Four' then 'Zero' then 'Two' and then the rest of two 'Zeros' will be written respectively. Therefore, there is no idea that the Zero which comes after 'Four' should be written in this way as it is upon the impugned mutation. The price upon the impugned mutation is written twice in figures and both the figures have .Got the same weakness. As far as the price mentioned in words is concerned, the word 'Four' can easily be enlarged in word 'Forty',"
' 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 14 acres would not justify a conclusion that it had been actually sold for rs40,200 and that too in 1967 when the land was not as costly as in these days.
7. Whether or not the sale price of rs40,200 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.