By this judgment recorded in Civil Revision No.96 of 2000 (Kamran A.I Khan v. Mst. Rashid Bibi), I also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions, bearing Nos.97 of 2000, 98 of 2000 and 99 of 2000 as the facts and law point involved in all these petitions are common.
2. This is a civil revision under section 115 of the C.P.C. Filed by Kamran A.I Khan against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Bannu, dated 6-5-2000, vide which. She accepted the appeal of respondent and. The petitioner has been ordered to pay the remaining pre--emption money within one month at the rate of Rs.46,662 as value for the suit property successfully pre-empted by the petitioner.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that Kamran A.I Khan brought a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge against Mst. Rashida Bibi for a decree for possession through pre-emption of. Land measuring 7 Marlas, 7 Sarsai, detailed in the headings of the plaint, situated in Mauza Kalakhel Masti Khan, Tehsil and District Bannu, at a price of Rs.4,200. It was further alleged that Sharifullah and Naseemullah Khan sons of Sardar Khan were owners of the property situated in village Kalakhel Masti Khan, Tehsil and District Bannu, measuring 7 Marlas, 7 Sarsai, who sold it to the defendant at the price of Rs.4,200 per Kanal, vide registered sale-deed No.292, dated 30-5-1998 and collusively entered an inflated price of Rs.One lac in. The sale--deed although the market value of the suit-land is much less than the inflated price and the price paid is Rs.4,200 per Kanal that the plaintiff is co-sharer in the suit property, he is participator in the privileges of immunities and appendages i.e. Rights of passage and irrigation; that the vendor has not served the pre- emptor with any legal notice and the plaintiff has observed all as and as he has got superior right of pre-emption,
4. The defendant resisted the suit of the plaintiff/pre-emptor by filing written statement and the trial Court framed almost six issues. The evidence of the respective parties was recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 17-6-1999 granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the trial Court fixed the market value of the suit-land at Rs.23,348.40 per Kanal, according to one
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the defendant Mst. Rashida Bibi preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge. Bannu and the learned appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court with slight modification and granted a decree on payment of Rs.46,662 as according the learned appellate Court the sale was through registered deed which has got due sanctity of truth and correctness.
6. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, Kamran All Khan has preferred the instant revision petition in this Court on the ground that there is no presumption of truth attached to any entry in the registered deed particularly when it was not even stated in examination-in-chief that what was paid actually to the seller nor the seller was produced. According to the petitioner no transaction has taken place before the Registrar nor there is any endorsement to this effect and moreover the special attorney of the defendant/respondent did riot utter a single word about actual price.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
8. The sole point in all these four cases is the determination of price of the suit-land. The trial Court based his judgment on the one year average price while the appellate Court has based her judgment and decree on the registered sale-deed. Admittedly, the presumption of truth is attached to the payment made through registered sale-deed because it is a public document and whenever in such-like cases there are two different criteria of prices i.e. One year average and the registered deed, it is pertinent to follow the registered sale-deed. The appellate Court has correctly upheld that where the value of a right, interest or title is stated in a document, the Court will not go behind that value and shall see whether the consideration for a deed is stated in terms of money and the question of liability to the registered deed must be determined with the reference to the amount so entered and not the real value of the property, In the case in hand, an amount of Rs.46,662 has been entered in the registered sale-deed No.292, dated 30-5-1998 qua the suit area of 7 Marlas and 7 Sarsai which is the correct price and has been properly upheld by the appellate Court.
9. The revision petition in hand as well as the connected Revision Petitions Nos.97 of 2000, 98 of 2000 and 99 of 2000 alongwith C.Ms. Stand dismissed, being devoid of any legal force.