ABBAS KHAN And 8 Others vs Haji SAIFULLAH
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the petitioners/defendants' civil revision by the High Court, arising out of a concurrently decreed civil suit for pre-emption. The core legal question is the determination of the correct pre-emption price (Zar-e-Shufa) payable by the pre-emptor, where the appellants/vendees claimed the consideration was Rs. 45,000 as stated in the registered sale deed and paid before the Sub-Registrar, whereas the courts below had fixed it at Rs. 4,212. The Supreme Court held that in the presence of strong circumstantial evidence, including the actual payment before the Registrar and the prevailing market value of the land in District Mianwali, and the lack of strong evidence supporting the respondent's version that the amount was returned, the appeal must be allowed. The principle laid down is that assertions of the return of consideration paid before a Sub-Registrar require very strong evidence to outweigh strong documentary and circumstantial evidence supporting the stated sale consideration in a pre-emption suit.
- Whether the pre-emption amount should be determined based on the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed and paid before the Sub-Registrar?
- What kind of evidence is required to substantiate the claim that the consideration paid before the Sub-Registrar was subsequently returned in a pre-emption suit?
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners/defendants' Civil Revision. 1t had arisen out of a civil suit for pre---emption filed by the respondent/pre-emptor which has been decreed throughout.
2. The question which remains to be resolved is that while the decree for pre-emption has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on payment of Rs.4,212 as Zar-e-Shufa, the appellant/vendee claimed that the amount should have been determined at Rs.45,000. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the argument that the sale was effected through a registered deed wherein the "consideration was mentioned as Rs.45,000". Not only this but also the entire amount was paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed.
3. The question noted in the leave granting order can be resolved by a balance treatment of material relied upon from both sides.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellants it is not only the actual payment before the Registrar of Rs.45,000 but also the fact that land involved is more than 50 kanals in District Mianwali and at a place where even at the relevant time the price per Kanal would not be less than Rs.1,000.
5. As against this the material relied upon from the respondent's side is only an assertion that the amount paid before the Registrar was returned. There should have been very strong evidence in order to support the version of return against the afore-stated strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the appellants. After some discussion learned counsel for the respondent could not take the care any further. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the decretal amount (Zar-i-Shufa) is increased to Rs.45,000. After allowing adjustments of already deposit or paid amount, if any, the plaintiff is allowed three months time from today to pay/deposit the balance amount in