Land Law-s-Pre-emption-s-Sale to third person at inflated price-Bona fides-
V aluation of lund by judge

The plaintiff and the first defendant were co-owners in a sagia. Nego-
tiations for sale of the defendant's share to the plaintiff wen: begun, the
price asked being £ E.I O. Before an agreement was reached the defendant
sold and transferred his share to a third party at a price of £ EAO. The
plaintiff claimed to pre-empt the land sold. The province judge gave a d.:-
cree to that effect provided the plaintiff would match the £E.40 purchase
price. The plaintiff applied for revision on the grounds that the purchase
price was fictitious and he should be allowed to pre-empt at the true price.

Held: The case would be returned to the province judge with a direc-
tion to take further evidence as to ascertain whether there was a bona fide
sale for £E.40, and if not to make a proper valuation of a property and
set a reasonable purchase price.

Pre-emption Ordinance 1928.

Revision

July 18, 1938. Creed C.J. This is an application by the plaintiff,
Taha Ali El Dawi, for the revision of the decree of the Province Court,
Northern Province by which it was declared that the plaintiff had the
right to exercise pre-emption of an undivided share of 0.351 of a
feddan in sagia 9, Dikka North, now. registered in the name of Abdel
Rasoul Ahmed Khalil (second defendant) by purchase from Mahmoud
Eff. Mohammed Saeed Taha (first defendant), on payment of the sum
of £E.40 and certain charges to the second defendant. The plaintiff
has applied to this court for revision of the decree on the ground that
the alleged purchase money, £E.40, is purely fictititious, and that
therefore he should be allowed to pre-empt at the true purchase price.

_ This is a very curious case. It appears from the first defendant's
own statement that in May 1937 he asked Nazir Ayoubcy Abdel Magid
if he could find a purchaser for 0.351 of a feddan which he owned in
sagia 9, Dikka. "After a long silence" came a letter dated August 17,
1937, from the Nazir to Mansur Eff. Khalil, the Assistant Registrar of
Lands, Damar, for communication to the first defendant, who is an of-
ficial in the Land Registry Office, stating that "now both Mahmoud and

• Court; Creed C.J., Evans R.O.L. and Flaxman J.

Taha" (the plaintiff) "agreed with extreme difficulty to pay £E.7 for
the share of Mahmoud Eff.'s" and asking if Mahmoud Eff. agreed.
Mansur Eff. replied on the instructions of Mahmoud Eff. that the latter
was prepared to accept £E.10 for the land, and asking that if the
plaintiff agreed to this price he should come to Damer as quickly as
possible to complete the registration. On August 23, 1937, this is
after the lapse of only four days, deeds were signed transferring the
property to the second defendant for the sum of £E.40, and the trans-
action was registered the follow.ing day at Darner Land Registry Office.

In four days the price of this land jumped from £E.I0 to £ E.40.

It is admitted that although the property was transferred to the second
defendant, he was to transfer it to his nepbew Khalil Eff., an official
in the Darner Mudiriah, as soon as the latter was able to obtain the
sanction of the Government to the purchase .

. The following points are worthy of notice in this case:

(1) The plaintiff has for some long time been purchasing all the
shares in tbis sagia which have come on the market. He already holds
the major portion of the sagia and is clearly intent on obtaining owner-
ship of the complete sagia for his garden.

(2) The purchaser is well acquainted with Berber and with the
value of property in that vicinity.

(3) The share which has been bought is an undivided share, and
the purchaser clearly had no hope of arriving at an amicable agree-
ment with the plaintiff under which he would receive any particular
spot in the sagia on partition.

(4) It is alleged that the greater part of the sagia is not suitable
for building purposes, although it has been included inside the mu-
nicipal boundary. The record of the suit gives no indication as to the
truth of this allegation.

(5) The learned province judge states in his judgement that in
his opinion Mahmoud Eff. Mohammed Said Taha has not told the
whole story of this transaction in his evidence. No one on reading
the record will be inclined to question the justice of the comment of
the learned judge. --..

(6) Khalil Eff., to whom it was intended that the ownership
should be transferred when he had c~.!!!E!ied with the necessary for-
malities laid down by Government in the case of purchases by of-

 to the Nazir, who expressed his amazement at the price,
that one of the two reasons for the increase of the price was that the
vendor owed him (Khalil) money. This was emphatically denied at
the trial. There is no reason to throw any doubt on the evidence
of the Nazir. Either Khalil Eft lied to the Nazir or lies were told
at the trial.

(7) The sudden inflation of the price from £E.1O to the figure
of £E.40 within four days is astounding.

(8) The Nazir repeatedly has expressed his astonishment at the
alleged purchase price of £E.40, and it bears no relationship whatever
to previous recent transactions in this sagia. The price per feddan
has apparently ranged between £E.10 and £E.12. The plaintiff has
given an intelligible reason for his offer of £ E. 7 for the share.

(9) The second defendant alleges that the only reason for the
sudden increase in the price of -this undivided share is that he wished
to buy it as a building speculation.

In the view of this court, the case should go back to the province
judge with a direction (a) that he should view the sagia and form his
opinion on the suitability of the sagia for building purposes and, if
necessary, hear evidence in this regard, (b) that he should have search
made for the alleged formal application made by Khalil Eff. to purchase
land ad joining that of the second defendant and (c) that he should take
further evidence to determine whether, in view of the availability and
price of sites in the neighbourhood, it can be held credible that the
second defendant actually paid £E.40 for the land for building pur-
poses in sagia 9, particularly in view of the fact that the purchase was

of an undivided share.                       

If it is not credible, in the opinion of the learned judge, that the
sum of £ E.40 was paid as purchase money for the share, he should
make an order for the payment of such sum as he considers was in
fact paid or would have been a reasonable price for the purchaser to
pay. If the applicant fails to satisfy the learned judge that this is
not a bona fide sale for £E.40, he should give the same decree as
before.

There is one other point on which this court considers it its duty
to express a unanimous opinion. It forms no part whatsoever of the
duties of the Assistant Registrar of Lands Darner to take upon himself
the functions of a land agent. Such conduct is in any circumstances