1969 PLP 341 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 17th April 1969. M. R. KHAN, J.‑The petitioners were the defendants in a suit for possession of a house by partition. The respondents brought the suit, claiming one half share of the house. According to them, the house in suit belonged to their predecessor‑in‑interest Zamin Ali and the defendant's predecessor‑in‑interest Ghulam Hussain in equal shares. The defendants asserted full title to the house, alleging that their predecessor Ghulam Hussain was the exclusive owner thereof and contended that the plaintiffs had no title and were out of possession. They also raised the question of jurisdiction value of the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit preliminarily on the finding that the plaintiffs had inherited one‑half share of the disputed house and were in constructive possession thereof. Against that decree, the defendants preferred an appeal which ended in dismissal. Thereafter the defendants took a second appeal to the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore but it also ended in dismissal. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court did not properly construe a deed of mortgage (Exh. D. 3) which has a bearing on the question of title. This deed of mortgage relating to the disputed house was executed by the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest Ghulam Hussain, and it was attested by Zamin Ali, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents (plaintiff's) learned counsel, therefore contends that the said mortgage deed furnishes evidence that the disputed house belonged to Ghulam Hussain exclusively. The learned Judges of the High Court found no. substance in this contention. We think that the learned Judges were right, because the mere fact of signing the mortgage deed by Zamin Ali as an attesting witness did not amount to an admission on his part that Ghulam Hussain was the exclusive owner of the house. An attesting witness to a document is not bound by its recitals. Learned counsel next submits that the value of the disputed house was about eighty to ninety thousand rupees and that the suit was under‑valued with the result that the petitioners were deprived of a first regular appeal in the High Court. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court failed to record any finding as to the jurisdictional value of the suit. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, considered this question and, having regard to the fact that the annual value of the disputed house is Rs. 432 only according to the assessment register, were of the opinion that the market price of the house was not more than Rs. 25,

000. No legitimate exception can be taken to this finding, the same being based on record maintained in the usual course of business. In this case, the High Court was competent under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act to satisfy itself as to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the valuation determined by the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.