1987 PLP 535 (MLD)
Sain ALLAH DITTA and others — Appellants Versus NABI BAKHSH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 535 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | Sain ALLAH DITTA and others — Appellants Versus NABI BAKHSH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 535 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 535 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 535 (MLD) (Sain ALLAH DITTA and others — Appellants Versus NABI BAKHSH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Faqir Hussain for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S.15--Suit for pre-emption- Sale price of suit land--Determination- Cash paid before Sub-Registrar, as borne out by the certificate appended to the sale-deed proving that amount to be the price paid for the land in suit--Such amount could be accepted to be the market value which, under the circumstances, did not need separate determination particularly when such amount was not materially different from one reached on basis of average sale price--Courts below, held, had not been wrong in passing decree upon payment of amount found to have been actually paid.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984. Amount of sale-price is the only question raised in this appeal filed by the vendee-defendant Sain Allah Ditta (since died represented by legal representatives) against the decree for possession through pre-emption of 50 Kanals 2 Marlas of agricultural and, situated in village Kot Miana, District Gujrat, passed in favour of the three plaintiff-respondents on payment of Rs.8,472 in respect of the sale thereof made in his favour by a registered deed, dated 23-1-1963 for an ostensible price of Rs.12,000, the break-up whereof. entered in the copy of sale-deed Exh.P-3 is:- (i) Previous mortgage-money Rs.800, (ii) Expenses of sale-deed Rs.150, (iii) Earnest money Rs.2,578, (iv) Cash paid before the Sub-Registrar Rs.8,472.
2. Plaintiff produced five-yearly average of sale-prices as Exh.P-1 showing Rs.194.69 as the price per Kanal of land. On the other side, vendee-defendant appeared as the solitary witness to make his own statement as D.W.2 wherein he deposed that he had paid Rs.2,821 as the earnest money for which he had even secured a receipt but none was produced in the Court and no witness even was examined in support of the alleged payment of earnest money, assertion where about has been disbelieved by the two Courts below rightly so', because there is no reliable evidence led with regard to the fixation of the sale-price or its payment and the averment made in the sale-deed cannot be accepted in itself to be the proof of payment and if the statement on the point made by the vendee himself was to be accepted, the total amount would exceed by Rs.243 of the ostensible sale-price.
3. The cash consideration paid before the Sub-Registrar, as borne out by the certificate appended to the sale-deed, proves only Rs.8,472 to be the price paid for the land in suit. This amount can be accepted to even be the market value which, under the circumstances, was not in need of being determined separately. More particularly so, because this amount is not materially different from the one to be reached on the basis of the average of sale-price. Therefore, the Courts below have not been wrong in passing the decree upon the payment of the amount found to have actually been 'paid.
4. There is no force in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the respondents have not put in appearance to contest the appeal in spite of service repeatedly effected on them, therefore, the parties are left to bear their own costs. S.Q./A-79/L Appeal dismissed.