1989 PLP 140 (CLC)

Sultan Wasi Jan v. Sultan Saeed Jan and others 1983 S C !M 1265 rel. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 9 & 42‑‑Record of Rights‑‑Khasra Girdawari‑‑Presumption of truth‑‑Khasra Girdawari, held, was neither a part of Record‑of‑Rights nor carried an irrebuttable or even rebuttable presumption of truth. Abdul Majid Khan for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Saeed Waraich for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1988. The respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit land through pre‑emption on the grounds that he was an heir of the vendor and a co‑sharer in the land in dispute. After filing written statement a better statement of the respondent was recorded by the learned trial Court under Order X, Rule 1, C.P.C. on 15‑2‑1978. In the said statement the respondent admitted that the appellants were tenants in the suit land at the time of making the sale. The learned Civil Judge, Gujrat, dismissed the suit of the respondent vide judgment dated 19‑3‑1978 solely on the ground that the appellants being tenants had the superior most right of pre‑empton. The respondent then filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment dated 15‑4‑1979 and he remanded the case for trial on merits, holding that the said admission did not bind the respondent. This appeal has been filed to assail the said appellate judgment. I have perused the record and have heard the arguments.

2. The original statement of the respondent recorded on 15‑2‑1978 is before me. In the said statement Bashir Ahmad plaintiff /respondent stated that the appellants purchased the land one year and ten months before and that prior to that the appellants were tenants in the land in dispute. He made it clear that the appellants were tenants in the land in dispute jointly. After recording the statement the learned trial Court gave a note that the plaintiff‑respondent had made it clear that the appellants were tenants in the suit land at the time of the sale in dispute. Even if the statement of the respondent is read without this explanatory note it in itself is quite sufficient and clear enough to mean that the respondent admitted that the appellants were joint tenants in the suit land at the time of the sale in dispute. He made it clear in the first sentence that the appellants had purchased the land one year and ten months before and that prior to that they were the tenants. This is enough to show that just before the sale or at the time of the sale the appellants were tenants in the suit land according to the said statement of the respondent. Therefore, it is a clear cut admission of the respondent that the appellants were tenants in the land in suit upto the time of the sale in dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent is not bound by his said admission because it is factually wrong. He contends that in the Khasra Girdawari the appellants are not shown as tenants. It may be pointed out that Khasra Girdawari is neither a part of Record‑of‑Rights nor carries irrebuttable or even rebuttable p presumption of truth. Whatever the worth of Khasra Girdawari may be, the same is lost in view of the statement of the respondent made on 15‑2‑‑1978. However, this point need not be gone into any further because it is the statement of the respondent himself in which he admitted that the appellants were tenants in the suit land at the relevant time and that statement has to be taken as true and final. Such a statement is a better statement and is of the same value as a written statement and of course is an admission of fact. It binds the respondent in the same manner as an admission which would have been made by him in the written statement. Therefore, the question that the said statement is factually wrong does not arise. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Sher Azam v. Mst. Tareena (1983 C L C 3157) and has argued that the respondent is not bound by the said admission. The said case is not relevant because the legal position has been. settled by the Honourable Supreme Court through their dictum in Sultan Wasi Jan v . Sultan Saeed Jan and others (1983 S C M R 1265). Discussing the admission they have held that an admission made by a party in a statement under Order X, Rule 1, C.P.C. is different from an admission otherwise admissible under the law of evidence. They have laid down that an admission made by a party in such a better statement binds the party concerned. Therefore, the respondent is bound by the admission made by him in his statement dated 15‑2‑1978. Accordingly, the learned trial Court was legally right in dismissing the suit of the respondent and consequently the judgment of the learned appellants Court is legally wrong.

3. The appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree dated 15‑4‑1979 of the learned appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree dated 19‑3‑1978 of the learned trial Court are restored. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. M.Y.H/L‑32/L Appeal allowed.