JUDGMENT : DIXIT, J. These two appeals arise out of a pre-emption suit in which a decree for pre-emption in respect of certain lands for Rs.9115/- has been passed by the Court of District Judge Bhind in favour of the plaintiff Fuljarilal. The Appeal No.29 of 2005 is by the plaintiff and is concerned solely with the question of the amount for which the plaintiff Fuljari Lal is entitled to exercise his right for pre-emption. The other appeal is by the defendant Ram Swarup with regard to the costs of the suit decreed against him. On 30-5-46, one Bhando Lal sold a piece of land situated in Bhind to Ram Swarup by a registered sale deed which contained a recital of a consideration of Rs.9115/-. After the sale of the house by Bhando Lal to Ram Swarup, the plaintiff Fuljari Lal brought a suit for pre-emption alleging that the sale was really for Rs.6000/-, the amount which was actually paid before the Registrar and that the recital in the sale deed that Bhando Lal had received Rs.3115/- from Ram Swarup on the previous day was fictitious. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to exercise his right of pre-emption in respect of the land for a sum of Rs.6000/- only. The defendant asserted in his written statement that the sale was in fact for Rs.9115/-. The lower Court found that the consideration for the sale was Rs.9115/- and that the plaintiff had the right to pre-empt the property for this amount. 2. In the appeal preferred by Fuljari Lal, the appellant prays that the decree of the lower Court be modified by reducing the amount for which the appellant is entitled to exercise his right of pre-emption to Rs.6000/-. Under S.19, Gwalior Pre-emption Act, 1992, if there is no agreement between the parties with regard to the consideration for a pre-emption sale, the Court has to determine in the first instance whether the amount for which the sale is alleged to have taken place was or was not in fact fixed or paid. This section also casts the onus of proving the fact that the consideration alleged was fixed or actually paid on the vendee. This section also casts the onus of proving the fact that the consideration alleged was fixed or actually paid on the vendee. It is only when the Court finds that the alleged consideration was not fixed or paid that the Court has to consider the question of the market price of the property for the purposes of the suit. In the present case, the evidence as to the consideration for which the property was purchased by Ram Swarup from Bhando Lal consists of (1) the statements of Ram Swarup that the land was sold to him for Rs.9115/ that on 29-5-46 he paid to Bhando Lal Rs.3115/-and obtained a receipt from him of the payment and that on the next day he paid Rs.6000/- to Bhando Lal before the Registrar and also gave back the receipt for the payment of Rs.3115/- to Bhando Lal in the presence of the Registrar, (2) the entries in Ram Swarup' s account books of the payment of Rs.3115/- to Bhando Lal on 29-5-46 and of Rs.6000/- on 30-5-46, (3) the endorsement on the sale deed that a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid before the Registrar and that Bhando Lal admitted before the Registrar that he had already received from Ram Swarup Rs.3115/- and had given him a receipt for this amount and this receipt was returned to Bhando Lal on the registration of the sale deed, (4) the depositions of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed, namely Sukhawasi Lal and Lal Chand that Bhando Lal was paid Rs.6000/- before the Registrar, and he admitted having already received Rs.3115/- and that the receipt for this amount was returned to him on the registration of the deed, (5) and the statement of Mr. Shyam Swarup Johari, the Registrar who gave evidence as to the facts mentioned in the endorsement in the sale deed. 3. This evidence is challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that Ram Swarup is interested in the transaction and his statement that Rs.3115/- were paid by him to Bhando Lal on 29-5-46 is not supported by the entry in his account book. It was said that Ram Swarup' s account books were not regularly kept and that in that account book the amount of Rs.3115/- said to have been paid to Bhando Lal is still shown as due from Bhando Lal. It was said that Ram Swarup' s account books were not regularly kept and that in that account book the amount of Rs.3115/- said to have been paid to Bhando Lal is still shown as due from Bhando Lal. It was argued that the receipt alleged to have been obtained for the payment of Rs.3115/- was not produced; the witnesses who attested the receipt were also not examined by the plaintiff and the contents of this receipt which is said to have been lost could not be proved by oral evidence in accordance with the provisions of Ss.59,63,64 and 65, Evidence Act. It was said that these factors and the fact that Ram Swarup did not give any notice to the plaintiff of the intended sale indicated that the payment of Rs.3115/- to Bhando Lal on 29-5-46 recited in the sale deed was fictitious. 4. I am unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence of Ram Swarup cannot be ruled out of consideration simply because he was a party to the transaction. Likewise the evidence of Sukhwasi Lal and Lal Chand cannot be ignored merely because they attested the sale deed. As observed by the Privy Council in - 'Idris v. Jane Skinner', AIR 1918 PC 154 (A). "In cases of this kind, (that is, in cases of pre-emption) the persons engaged in the transactions and notably the vendors and the vendees are necessarily essential witnesses and in the absence of the contradiction to disregard their testimony because they were interested parties, is to carry the vigilance with which the Court ought always to regard interested testimony beyond all reasonable and trustworthy limits. There appears to be no reason on record in the evidence to impute collusion and dishonesty to any of these witnesses, and as their evidence is wholly unanswered it must in their Lordships' opinion prevail". 5. Here, Ram Swarup said in his evidence that on 29-5-46 he paid to Bhando Lal Rs.3115/- as. earnest money for the sale and expenses of the registration and obtained a receipt from him and that this receipt was returned to Bhando Lal the next day on the completion of the registration of the deed, Bhando Lal was also examined as a witness of the plaintiff. He said that he had lost the receipt for Rs.3115/- and was not, therefore, able to produce it. He said that he had lost the receipt for Rs.3115/- and was not, therefore, able to produce it. It is true that the witness was-not asked either by the plaintiff or by the defendant whether he did receive the amount of Rs.3115/- on 29-5-46. But then there is nothing in his statement to destroy the evidentiary value of the endorsement by the Registrar on the sale deed that Bhando Lal admitted before him the receipt of Rs.3115/- on 29-5-46 and that the receipt for the payment was returned by. Ram Swarup to Bhando Lal in his presence on the completion of the registration. Mr. Shyam Swarup Johari who registered the deed and other witnesses Sukhwasi Lal and Lal Chand also deposed that this admission was made by Bhando Lal before the Registrar and a receipt of the payment of Rs.3115/- was returned by Ram Swarup to Bhando Lal after the registration. It was the duty of the appellant to put question to Bhando Lal to elicit the fact that he did not admit before the Registrar the receipt of Rs.3115/- from Ram Swarup on 29-5-46. The certificate of registration has indeed an evidentiary value attached to it by S.49, Gwalior Registration Act Samvat 1971 which corresponds to S.60, Indian Registration Act. It is admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered and that the facts mentioned in the endorsement made under Ss.27,28,47 and 48, Gwalior Registration Act have occurred as they are mentioned. It would thus be seen that where there is an endorsement by the Registrar upon a sale deed about the payment of money made in his presence by the vendee to the vendor and of the admission of the vendor of having already received an advance before executing the sale, it is of considerable evidential value and must prevail unless its effect is negatived by other circumstances appearing in the case. The onus was, therefore, clearly on the appellant to rebut the endorsement and to show that Bhando Lal did not admit before the Registrar the receipt of Rs.3115/- on 29-5-46. It must be noted that S.19, Gwalior Pre-emption Act which lays upon the vendee the burden of proving consideration, does not abrogate the provisions of S.49, Gwalior Registration Act relating to the evidentiary value of the endorsement made under sections referred to therein on a sale deed. It must be noted that S.19, Gwalior Pre-emption Act which lays upon the vendee the burden of proving consideration, does not abrogate the provisions of S.49, Gwalior Registration Act relating to the evidentiary value of the endorsement made under sections referred to therein on a sale deed. Section 19, Pre-emption Act only means that in a suit for pre-emption the initial burden lies on the vendee to show the actual amount of sale consideration and when this is done, the onus lies on the plaintiff pre-emptor to show that the consideration entered in the sale deed is not the real consideration. This section cannot be so construed as to render the express provisions of S.49, Registration Act absolutely nugatory and to cast on the vendee the burden of proving the facts stated in the endorsement aliunde by positive evidence. As the appellant made no attempt to rebut this endorsement, it must be held that Bhando Lal admitted before the Registrar the receipt of Rs.3115/- on 29-5-46 and also received back from Ram Swarup a receipt for the payment which he had given to Ram Swarup. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant laid considerable stress on the fact that Ram Swarup' s account books were not regularly kept, that in the account books, the account of Rs.3115/- alleged to have been paid to Bhando Lal is still shown as due from him and that in the account books, entries were not made from day to day as transaction took place. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the evidence of the plaintiff's witness Shri Ram who examined the accounts and said that the accounts were not regularly kept. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention. It is not clear from the evidence of Shri Ram that he is an expert in accounts. He also does not depose that books of accounts in order to be regular must be kept in some particular prescribed form. As noted in Jones "On Evidence". "No particular form of books of account is generally prescribed, although books are far more satisfactory when kept in the form of daily entries of debits and credits in a day book or journal .... As noted in Jones "On Evidence". "No particular form of books of account is generally prescribed, although books are far more satisfactory when kept in the form of daily entries of debits and credits in a day book or journal .... but the book should be such a regular and usual account book as explains itself and as appears on its face to create a liability in an account with the party against whom it is offered, and not to be a mere memorandum for some other purpose. Hence mere loose sheets of paper are not admissible; and a single entry does not constitute an account book,...... The account book of an illiterate labourer, as well as those of a tradesman or banker are admissible in evidence, if within the statutory conditions, the purposes of which are to secure authenticity and credibility in respect to the evidence, rather than to prescribe the form of it." 7. Counsel for the appellant says that the respondent vendee' s account books are not regularly kept in the course of business as at one place there is no entry of any transaction done during one fortnight. It is difficult to see how there could be any such entry if no transaction was done during the period. As regards the entry in the account books about the payment of Rs.3115/- on 29-5-46, it is true that it is in the words "Bando Lal Baniya Bhind Walw ke nam", thus showing that the amount is due from Bhando Lal. But so is the entry relating to the payment of Rs.6000/- on 30-5-46 before the Registrar to Bhando Lal, which is not disputed. Both the entries, however, mention that the payment is in respect of the purchase of a land. In these circumstances the words of the entry in the account books of Ram Swamp about the payment of Rs.3115/- to Bhando Lal cannot be taken as decisive of the fact that the payment was not towards the purchase of the land. 8. It is then argued that the receipt for the payment of Rs.3115/- alleged to have been passed by Bhando Lal in favour of Ram Swarup was not produced and that other evidence to prove the existence of the receipt and its contents was not admissible. There is no force in this contention. 8. It is then argued that the receipt for the payment of Rs.3115/- alleged to have been passed by Bhando Lal in favour of Ram Swarup was not produced and that other evidence to prove the existence of the receipt and its contents was not admissible. There is no force in this contention. The effect of Ss.59, 61, 63(5) and 65, Evidence Act, read together is that the contents of a document may be proved by oral evidence, when such evidence is admissible as secondary evidence. In the present case Ram Swarup, who had himself taken the receipt and seen it, deposed to the contents of the receipt and said that it was returned to Bhando Lal in the presence of the Registrar. Mr. Johari the Registrar and attesting witnesses Sukhwasi Lal and Dal Chand corroborate the fact of the return of the receipt to Bhando Lal. Mr. Johari's statement is that the receipt referred to in the endorsement on the sale deed must have been produced before him. Mr. Johari no doubt, added that he could not recall all the details about the registration and made it clear that he was not testifying to the facts mentioned in the endorsement from his memory. In saying that the receipt must have been produced before him, Mr. Johari only stressed the fact that he used to perform regularly the registration proceedings and that if the receipt had not been produced before him, seen by him and returned in his presence to Bhando Lal, he would not have made the endorsement on the sale deed which he did. I think in the absence of anything to suggest to the contrary it must be presumed that Mr. Johari, performed the official act of the registration in a regular manner and saw the receipt before it was returned to Bhando Lal in his presence. The attesting witnesses do not say that they actually saw the receipt. But Sukhwasi Lal says that the receipt was read out at the time of the registration. The existence of the receipt and its return to Bhando Lal having been thus established, no adverse inference can be drawn against Ram Swarup from the fact that it was subsequently lost by Bhando Lal and could not be produced in evidence by Bhando Lal. The existence of the receipt and its return to Bhando Lal having been thus established, no adverse inference can be drawn against Ram Swarup from the fact that it was subsequently lost by Bhando Lal and could not be produced in evidence by Bhando Lal. Learned Counsel for the respondent sought to explain the return of the receipt to Bhando Lal by saying that after the registration of the sale deed evidencing the payment of the consideration of Rs.9115/- and the existence of a receipt for Rs.3115/- Ram Swarup might have thought it unnecessary to retain it with him. I cannot regard this explanation as altogether untenable, especially when the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to suggest the significance that should be attached to the fact of the return of the receipt to Bhando Lal in the face of the evidence that it was produced before the Registrar and was seen by him and that Bhander Lal admitted before the Registrar that he had already received from Ram Swarup Rs.3115/-. 9. On a consideration of the evidence on record I am led to the conclusion that the respondent has succeeded in discharging the initial burden that lay on him to show that the consideration for the sale was Rs.3115/-. The burden was not heavy. For, it is obvious that with the aid of S.49, Gwalior Registration Act, a vendee is able to discharge the burden with a quantum of evidence much less than that which would otherwise be required. It was open to the pre-emptor appellant to prove in rebuttal that the amount of Rs.3115/- was never paid to the vendor Bhando Lal or that if it was paid, the amount was subsequently refunded to Ram Swarup. But he has not done so. The evidence of his witness Ram Chandra is simply this, that he was at first intended to be one of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed but when Dal Chand became available he was not required and that on 30-5-46 Sukhwasi Lal told him that the sale was for Rs.3000/- a statement not asserted even by the appellant himself. The witness further said that he had heard the parties to the transaction talk amongst themselves that the receipt for Rs.3115/- was obtained to defeat any right of pre-emption that might be set up. The witness further said that he had heard the parties to the transaction talk amongst themselves that the receipt for Rs.3115/- was obtained to defeat any right of pre-emption that might be set up. If this was the intention of the defendant, he would not have talked about it loudly enough to enable the witness to hear and know of his intention nor would he have returned the receipt to Bhando Lal. According to the other witness Balmukund, he had offered to purchase the land for Rs.6000/- and that his was the highest offer which Bhando Lal had received from any one for the purchase of the land. In my opinion this sort of evidence is not evidence of the fact that Ram Swarup did not as a matter of fact pay Rs.3115/- to Bhando Lal on 29-5-46. Such being the state of evidence on record, I am of the view that the finding of the learned District Judge that the sale was for a consideration of Rs.9115/- must be upheld and the plaintiff Fuljari Lal's appeal must be dismissed. 10. The defendant' s appeal as regards costs rests on the contention that as the plaintiff has failed in the lower Court in the matter of the price to be paid, he is not entitled to receive any costs from the defendant. This contention must also be rejected. There could have been some force in the appeal if in the suit the issue between the parties had been only with regard to the consideration for the sale. But the defendant Ram Swarup chose to resist the suit also on the grounds of non-joinder of parties and waiver on the part of the plaintiff of his right of pre-emption. On both these issues he failed miserably. There is, therefore, no justification for disallowing the plaintiff his costs in the trial Court. 11. In our opinion, the decision of the trial Court is correct. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs. The plaintiff-appellant was permitted by this Court to defer the deposit of the consideration amount of Rs.9115/- till the disposal of his appeal. He should now deposit it within three months' time together with the respondent' s costs in this Court after deducting his own costs in the trial Court and in this Court in the appeal preferred by the defendant. He should now deposit it within three months' time together with the respondent' s costs in this Court after deducting his own costs in the trial Court and in this Court in the appeal preferred by the defendant. In case of default in the payment within three months, the plaintiff's suit shall stand dismissed with costs throughout. 12. CHATURVEDI, J.:- I agree.