1984 PLP 2207 (CLC)

(8) Whether a sum of Rs. 3,75,000 has been fixed in good faith or actually paid as the sale price of the suit land ? O.P.D. (9) If issue No. 8 is not proved, then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of its sale ? O.P.D. (10) Relief. The trial Court found issues Nos. 1 to 7 against Muhammad Yaqoob appellant‑defendant. Issues Nos. 8 and 9 were however, discussed jointly. The trial Court found that the ostensible sale price Rs. 3,75,000 was neither fixed in good faith nor actually paid as sale price of the suit land and that Rs. 2,81,250 were actually paid by the petitioner/ defendant to the vendor. Both the issues Nos. 8 and 9 were answered accordingly. Result antly, the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed subject to payment of Rs. 2,81,

250. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner filed appeal which, too, was dismis sed by the learned District Judge, Vehari on 7th February, 1982. Hence this revision.

3. The revision was admitted by this Court on 6th March, 1982 to see whether extension of time granted by the trial Court to make up the deficiency in court‑fee was without application of mind ? Before me, Ch. M. A. Latif Amritsari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the extension of time granted by the trial Court to make up the deficiency in court‑fee and the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2 in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in case Mst. Parveen Akhrar v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum (PLD1983SC227) and rightly so. He, however, raised the following points :‑ (1) That the sale price having not been deposited on or before 30th November, 1981 as directed by the trial Court, the suit filed by respondent automatically stood dismissed on that date. (2) That since there is a recital in the registered sale‑deed that the petitioner/defendant paid Rs. 3,75,000 as sale price and the presumption of truth being attached to it, the finding of the Courts below on issue No. 8 are without justification. (3) That despite its finding on issue No. 8, that the ostensible sale price, i. e. Rs. 3,75,000 was neither fixed nor actually paid, the learned Court below have not cared to find out the market value of the suit land and the findings of the learned Courts below that Rs. 2,81,250 were fixed in good faith and actually paid by the vendee to the vendor does not tantamount to the market value of the suit land. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated at bar that the sale price was actually deposited in the trial Court on 6th December, 1981 i.e. about 24 days before the date fixed by the trial Court for the deposit of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert it. As for contention No. 3, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the same is factually incorrect inasmuch as both the Courts below have discussed and determined the market value of the suit land as Rs. 2,81,250.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons that the sale price was actually deposited within the time fixed by the trial Court. As for contention at 3, I find that the trial Court while discussing issues Nos. 8 and 9 jointly has found issue No. 8 against the petitioner/defendant and in para. No. 7 has stated that "I am not convinced that a sum of Rs. 3,75,000 was ever fixed in good faith or actually paid to the vendor whereas the contention of the plaintiff/pre‑emptor with regard to the payment of Rs. 2,81,250 as actual sale price stood proved by oral as well documentary evidence. It, rather, stood proved even through the testimony of vendee‑defen dant's witnesses." The learned District Judge has in so many words stated that : "I, therefore, concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that as a matter of fact Rs. 2,81,250 were fixed in good faith and actually paid as the price of the suit land, and the same was the market value of the suit land. I uphold the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on issues Nos. 8 and 9."

5. The plain reading of the judgments of the learned Courts below makes crystal clear that both the Courts have discussed and decided issue No. 9 with regard to the market value and as such the contention raised by the learned counsel is without substance. Further, issue No. 9 is an issue of fact. The respondent/ plaintiff had also examined Muhammad Arif, Patwari Illaqa to prove, Exh. P.

5. Both the Courts below have applied their mind to issue No. 9 and to my mind, have determined the market value in accordance with provisions of section 27 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. Section 27. "Market value." Haw to be determined‑For the purpose of determining the market value, the Court may consider the following among other matters as evidence of such value :‑‑ (a) the price or value actually received or to be received by the vendor from the vendee or the amount really due on the footing of the mortgage, as the case may be ; (b) the amount of interest included in such price, value, or amount ; (c) the estimated amount of the average annual net assets of the land or property ; (d) the land revenue assessed upon the land or property ; (e) the value of similar land or property in the neighbourhood ; (f) the value of the land or property as shown by previous sales or mortgages." and have concurrently held that Rs. 2,81,250 having been actually paid was also the market value of the suit land. As for contention No. 2, I find that Rs. 3,75,000 were not paid by the petitioner/vendee to Ah vendor in the presence of the Registrar. The presumption of truth, if any, was rebuttable and the same stands successfully rebutted by the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff and testimony of the petitioner's witnesses refer red to by the trial Court.

6. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. Y. M. Revision dismissed.