1983 PLP 446 (CLC)

(2) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 have waived the right of pre‑emption ? OD. (3) Whether the vendee. defendant has carried out any improvement over the suit property, if so, its extent, value and effect ? OD. (4) Whether the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have got superior right of pre‑emption as against the defendant ? OD (OP). (5) Who among the rival pre‑emptor has got superior right of pre emption inter se ? OP. (6) Whether Rs. 15,000 were fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale price of the sue: property ? OD. (7) What was the market value of the suit property at the time of sale ? OPP. (8) Relief.

3. Issue No. 1 was found in negative, issues Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against vendees/defendants, issues Nos. 4 and 5 were decided in favour of respondents/pre‑emptor, issue No. 6 was decided in favour of the vendees. It was held that Rs. 15,000 were fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale price of the suit property at the time of sale. Issue No. 7, in view of the findings on issue No. 6, this issue was not called for. As a result of these findings the suit was decreed in favour of Ghulam Rasul respondent herein for Rs. 15,000.

4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner /defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Vehari which was entrusted to the learned Addl. District Judge who vide his judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1982 partly accepted same by setting aside the decree for possession to the extent of two kanals. He held that Ghulam Rasul pre‑emptor had a superior right of pre‑emption over 1/2 of the sold property and allowed the pre‑emptor to withdraw Rs 7,500 already deposited by him as a sale price of the entire suit land. Still not satisfied, the vendee has filed the present petition.

5. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 4 where by he declared that Ghulam Rasul respondent had a superior right of pre‑emption over 2 kanals of land. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner vendee was, in fact, a tenant over the entire land of Allah Ditta vendor and as such he should have been treated as a tenant of the entire 4 kanals. To substantiate his submission he has relied upon state ment of DW‑1 Allah Bakhsh. I have gone through the copy of the state ment placed on record by the petitioner. I find that Allah Bakhsh peti tioner as DW‑I in cross‑examination has clearly stated I am of the view that the petitioner is at least bound by‑his statement. The learned counsel while referring to the other portion of the statement of this witness has vehemently argued that the portion of the statement reproduced above has wrongly been recorded and in any case there is some ambiguity. I have considered this argument. I am inclined to observe that a presumption of truth is attached to the record prepared by the Court and as such it cannot be believed that the above statement was wrongly recorded by the Court. For the ambiguity I find that the right of re‑examination to clarify the ambiguity, if any, was available to the learn ed counsel for the petitioner but he did not make any attempt to resolve the so‑called ambiguity. Issue No. 4 is more or less an issue of facts. The learned Additional District Judge has applied his mind to the legal and factual aspects of the matter and has given sound reasons in support of his conclusion and as such he has exercised the jurisdiction legally and properly.

6. For what has been stated above there is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed in limine. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.