PIRL Versus NOORA

1. Din Muhammad sold the land in dispute to Pirla and three others by a registered sale deed for Rs. 29,000. Noora and Mehra filed a suit for possession of the land through pre-emption and, inter alla, alleged that in fact the sale price was Rs. 14,000 and the amount over and above it had beet; fictitiously shown in the registered sale deed for the purpose of defeating their right of pre-emption.

2. The plaintiffs based their right of pre-emption on the ground that they were owners in the village, whereas Pirla, Akbar and Mutalli were not. They contended further that although Rehman was an owner, he had forfeited his right by collaborating with strangers.

3. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, and the following issues were framed-

(1) Whether the sale in dispute is pre-emptible? O. P. D.

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are possessed of superior pre-emptive rights as against the vender-defendants? O. P. D.

(3) Whether the sale price of Rs. 29,000 was fixed in good faith or the same is actually paid?

4. (3-A) Whether Rs. 12,500 was returned to vendees defendants by vendor after the attestation of sale deed? O. P. P.

(4) What is the market value of the suit property? O. P. P.

(5) What is the right valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? O. P. P.

(6) Relief

5. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit by his order dated 27-3-1968 and ordained that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the land through pre-emption on payment of the total consideration i.e. Rs. 26,500 plus costs. Pirla etc. filed an appeal, which was dismissed with costs by Mr. Mazharul Haq, District Judge, Gujranwala, as he then was, on 23-11-1968. Hence this second appeal.

6. The first question raised in this appeal is that the land in dispute being evacuee property, no suit could be entertained 'in respect of it by the Civil Courts, it having been so held by a Full Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore in All Muhammad v. Mahmoodul Hassan (P L D 1968 Lab. 329). The need for elaborate arguments on this issue was obviated by the Supreme Court having meanwhile declared the law in Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique (P L D 1973 S C 347), wherein it was observed at page 361 that:-

7. "In my view, a pre-emption suit qua the sale of rights created in favour of a confirmed allott:e in evacuee property made by the latter to a stranger merely seeks the eviction of that stranger from the property and his replacement by the pre-emptor and does not involve the issuance of any legal process against the evacuee property itself to come within the mischief of section 12 of Ordinance XV of 1919 or section 16 of Act X11 of 1957."

8. The West Pakistan High Court Ruling having been thus reversed ands there being no dispute in the present case that the allotment of the land had been confirmed in favour of the vendors the dictum quoted above is on all fours with the facts of this case and there is no difficulty in holding that the objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain the suit as the property in dispute is evacuee property does not hold any water.

9. The only other point argued before me is about the sale consideration. Learned counsel for Pirla etc. bas contended that the learned District Judge was wholly wrong in observing that:-

10. "In my opinion, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the receipt of the amount of Rs. 2,500 the mere oral testimony of one of the appellants and Jalal (D. W. 1) cannot be relied upon . . . . . . There being no documentary proof of any earnest money, it was rightly not allowed by the learned trial Court."

11. The sale deed is Exh. D-1. It is a registered document and has beers inscribed on a stamp-paper worth Rs. 870. It begins with the recitation that the sale consideration is Rs. 29,000 out of which Rs. 2,500 have been received in advance while Rs. 26,500 are to be paid before the Sub-Registrar. Page 3 of this document contains another recital that the sale consideration has been received as follows-

12. Rs. 2,500 received in advance and the balance of Rs. 26,500 will be received from Pirla in the presence of the Sub-Registrar.

13. There could be no more authentic documentary evidence of the amount of consideration for which the land was sold.

14. Reference may also be made to the certificate at the back of the document, which is duly signed by the Sub-Registrar as well as the vendor and vendees, in which it has been categorically stated that a sum of Rs. 26,500 has been paid in the presence of the Officer and a sum of Rs. 2,500 has been acknowledged by the vendor to have been received earlier.

15. Part XI of the Registration Act, which begins with section 51 deals with the duties and powers of the Registering Officers. Section 52(1)(a) provides for the endorsement of the day, hour and place of presentation of every document, which is presented for registration. Part (B) of this Chapter deals with the procedure on admitting a document to registration. This part starts with section 51. It deals with all documents, which are admitted to registration except copies of a decree or order or a document sent under section 59 of the Act. it gives a mandate for endorsing on every document certain particulars named in the section. These include-

(a) the signatures of every person admitting the execution of the document.

(b) the signatures of every person examined in reference to such docu ment under any of the provisions of the Act, and

(c) any payment of money in the presence of the Registering Officer in reference to the execution of the document and any admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presence in reference to such execution.

16. One of the requisites of the certificate, therefore, is the endorsement on it of receipt of consideration or any admission about it whether it relates to whole of it or part of it. It can hardly be questioned that any amount out of the consideration paid in advance continues to be a part of the considera tion and a statement regarding the receipt thereof has to be endorsed by the Registering Officer on the certificate inscribed by him on the back of the document.

17. Section 60, subsection (2) referring to it lays down that-

18. "60(2) Such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the Registering Officer and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act and that the facts mentioned in the endorsement referred to in section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned."

19. Section 59 of course refers to the endorsement made under sections 52 and 58. We have already taken note of the provisions of section 58 above. Consequently the particulars inter alia of any admission of receipt of consi deration in whole or in part made in the presence of the Registering officer inscribed in the Certificate are facts. which ace to be presumed under section 60 to have occurred as mentioned in that certificate, for the certificate is admissible for the purpose of proving this event.

20. To this may be added the authority of section 79 of the Evidence Act, which requires a Court to presume every document to be genuine which purports to be a certificate which is by law declared to be admissible in evidence of any particular fact.

21. Section 60(2) and section 79 read together, therefore, further reinforce the position and it becomes indubitable that the statement as to the receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,500 in advance as part of the consideration for the sale of the land inscribed in the certificate on the back of the sale deed by the Registering Officer, is proof of the payment having been so made. All that -is required is that the provisions of section 60 should have been complied with and the facts sought to be proved should be such as are mentioned in sections 52 and 58. Nobody has ever said that there is any rebuttal of it worth the name.

22. The appeal is consequently accepted with costs. The judgment and decree impugned before me are modified to the extent that the plaintiffs shall. be entitled to the relief granted to them therein on payment of the full sum of Rs. 29,(,00 shown in the sale deed and not Rs. 26,500 ruled by the Court below.

23. S. A. H. Appeal accepted