MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Mohammad Akbar Khan, appellant, sold 192 kanals and 4 marlas of land situated in village Hathian, District Mardan, to Sultan Ghani, respondent, by a sale deed, Exh. P.
X., on the 24th July 1953. Possession was delivered to the respondent, but three months later the appellant forcibly re-entered the land on the plea that the sale price fixed at Rs. 60,000 had not been paid to him. This led to the institution of the suit by the respondent for possession of land out of which this certificated appeal by reason of the value of the subject-matter has arisen.
The only ground urged in support of the appeal was that out of the price fixed in the sale deed Rs.
34,000 only were paid to the appellant before the Sub-Registrar and the balance of Rs. 26,000 remained unpaid though an erroneous recital was got incorporated in the sale deed that the amount had been earlier received by him privately.
The concurrent findings of the Courts below on the question of payment of consideration are against the appellant. There was dispute as to the identity of the land sold which was resolved by the High Court in favour of the respondent in the counter-appeal filed by him from the judgment and decree of the District Judge. Notice was also taken of the alteration made in the sale deed changing Rs. 54,000 fixed as sale price to Rs. 60,000. Dealing with the issues the learned Judges observed: "9. Now, as regards Mohammad Akbar's appeal the sale deed states that Rs. 26,000 had already been paid to him and that the balance would be paid before the Sub-Registrar. In his statement, Mohammad Akbar Khan admitted that this had been recorded at his own bidding, but that he did so in the following circumstances. Originally he had sold the land for Rs. 54,000 when the sale deed was written up. Sultan Ghani said that he had brought only Rs. 34,000 and that he did not mind if he paid another Rs. 6,000 if he were permitted to pay the balance of Rs. 26,000 three months later.
Mohammad Akbar Khan says he relied upon Sultan Ghani and in the sale deed the words and figures Rs. 54,000 were substituted by Rs. 60,000.
10. There is no doubt that the sale deed shows that the sale money originally was Rs. 54,000 and that this figure has been replaced by Rs. 60,000. We saw the original sale deed and found that according to the recital as it stood, Muhammad Akbar Khan was to receive the entire amount of the sale money, namely, Rs. 54,000 before the Sub-Registrar. When the words fifty-four thousand were substituted by sixty thousand, the recital was altered so as to say that Rs. 34,000 would be paid before the Sub-Registrar, and the following words were added : "I have received twenty-six thousand rupees privately.
11. Prima facie, the explanation is good, but if the plaintiff had brought only Rs. 34,000 with him and he asked for three months respite to pay the balance, then if any ` addition had to be made, the addition should have stated that twenty-six thousand were to be paid within three months.
Learned counsel for Muhammad Akbar Khan was not able to satisfy us why it had become necessary for him to make a false statement in the sale deed to his disadvantage. He had admitted in his own statement during the trial that the plaintiff was a perfect stranger to him before this transaction and that he had been introduced by one Masal a person who now appears as a witness for the defendant Mohammad Akbar Khan. We do not think he could have relied so much on as stranger who had, in the very first instance, failed in his promise to make payment of the entire sale money before the Sub-Registrar. The learned trial Judge has pointed out that even in another detail Mohammad Akbar Khan had proved himself to be unreliable. Thus, in his written statement of the 23rd April 1954, he admitted having received Rs. 34,000 while in the subsequent written statement of the 7th June 1954, he stated that the sale was without consideration and denied having received any money from the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff stated that he had paid Rs. 26,000 to Mohammad Akbar Khan in the latter's hujra in the presence of his karinda, Said Hassan and Masal. Both these are persons attached to Mohammad Akbar Khan and, therefore, they do not support the plaintiff. We do not, however, attach any importance to that statement. The plaintiff denied that the sale money originally agreed upon was Rs. 54,000. This is not a correct statement because the sale deed as we have pointed out, originally recorded the sale money to be Rs. 54,000. The plaintiff, however, is an illiterate person and we cannot be sure that every thing that has been done was done with his consent. The alterations have been signed, by Muhammad Akbar Khan defendant and he alone is, therefore, responsible for them. How the sale deed was originally recorded is not the responsibility of the plaintiff because it was recorded at the instance of Muhammad Akbar Khan the petition- writer, Muhammad Rafeeq also did not throw any satisfactory light on these alterations. He stated that he had executed the deed at the instance of Muhammad Akbar Khan. In cross-examination he stated that the plaintiff had come to him after the sale deed had been written and told him that he had not got the money with him and that the amount should be cancelled and `then' I altered the sale money from Rs. 54,000 to Rs.60,000 and Rs. 54,000 which had to be paid be--fore the Sub- Registrar were substituted by Rs.34,000 and it was also recorded that Rs. 26,000 had been received earlier. He does not say at whose instance and why the sale money was increased from Rs. 54,000 to Rs. 60,000.
13. We have already stated, however, that whatever may have been the reason for altering the amount of the sale money even if the defendant's own reason for effecting the alteration be accepted, there was no compelling circumstance which required Muhammad Akbar Khan to record a false statement against himself, and no reason why he should have stated even before the Sub-Registrar that Rs. 26,000 had been received by Aim earlier."
On reviewing the entire evidence on the record, the learned Judges concluded: "In the result we accept the appeal of Sultan Gliani with costs and decree his suit for the possession of 192 kanals 4 marlas out of the specific numbers which he has claimed and dismiss the appeal of Muhammad Akbar Khan with costs."
The learned counsel for the appeal has nothing substantial to urge against the view expressed by the High Court. Indeed provisions of sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act precluded the appellant from going behind the recital in the sale deed that the entire sum of Rs. 60,000 had been paid to him and that he had no right or interest left in the land. It was not his case that the sale was vitiated by fraud, intimidation, want of due execution, want of capacity to contract, want or failure of consideration or mistake in fact or law within the second proviso to section 92. As no such case was set up by the appellant, the suit for possession brought by the respondent on the basis of the sale deed was rightly decreed by the Courts below.
The appeal is thus without any substance and is dismissed with costs.