1999 PLP 1185 (YLR)

Instant Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14‑10‑1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Attock whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10‑3‑1996 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/ petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that land measuring 29 Kanals 8 Marlas belonging to Pir Lal Badshah and Ghulam Mohayyuddin was alienated in favour of Sher Muhammad alias Sher vide Mutation No. 960 dated 12‑8‑1993. The plaintiff/petitioner pre empted the said sale alleging that land was actually sold for Rs.78,000 but an ostensible sale price of Rs.3,15,000 had been mentioned to defeat his right of pre‑emption. He claimed his superior right being an owner in the estate as well as on the ground of contiguity. He alleged that he had preformed Talbs as required by law. He requested the defendant to accept his superior right of pre‑emption and hand over the possession of suit land. The defendant contested the suit and controverted his assertion. He, however, asserted that he purchased the suit land for Rs.3,15,000 and had spent an amount of Rs.60,000 as incidental expenses for the completion of transaction. The pleadings of the parties gave birth to the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre‑emption against defendant? OPP (2) Whether ostensible sale price of Rs.3,15,000 was fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale price of suit land? OPD (3) If Issue No.2 is not proved in affirmative, what was the market value of suit land at the time of its sale? OPP. (4) Whether plaintiff has fulfilled requirement of Talbs? OPP (5) Whether the defendant is entitled to incidental charges, if so, to what amount ? OPD (6) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD (7) Relief.

3. In support of his stand plaintiff/ petitioner examined Abdul Ghafoor son of Fateh Muhammad P. W .1, Abdul Ghafoor son of Ghulam Hyder P.W.2 and appeared himself as P.W.3. He also brought on record documents Exh.P‑1 to Exh.P‑5 and then closed his affirmative evidence. He also examined Ghulam Mustafa Patwari P.W.4 and then closed his evidence. In rebuttal defendant/respondent examined Muhammad Hanif D.W.1 and Fateh Muhammad D.W.2. He produced copy of mutation Exh.D‑2 and then closed his evidence.

4. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10-3‑1996. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Attock vide his judgment and decree dated 14‑10‑1996. Having dissatisfied with the judgments of the lower Courts the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the instant civil revision.

5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

6. The only point which requires determination in this civil revision is, if Talb -i‑Muwathibat has been made in accordance with law or not as the suit has been dismissed on this score by the trial Court, which findings have been confirmed by the appellate court, According to section 13 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 the right of pre emption of a person stands extinguished unless said person makes demands of pre emption in the following order, namely (a) Talb‑i‑Muwathibat; (b) Talb‑i‑Ishhad; and (c) Talb‑i‑Khusumat. Talb‑i‑Muwathibat has further been explained to mean immediate demand by a pre‑emptor, in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre‑emption. That is why Talb‑i‑Muwathibat has been described as jumping demand. In the instant case Mutation No.960 was sanctioned on 12‑8‑199.3. The stand of plaintiff is that he came to know about this transaction on 21‑8‑1993 when Abdul Ghafoor son of Fateh Muhammad (P.W.1) was also present and Abdul Ghafoor son of Ghulam Hyder (P.W.2) informed him about the said alienation and he made Talb‑i‑Muwathibat there and then. This stand of plaintiff (P.W.3) stands falsified by his own witness Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.2) who admits in his cross‑examination that he had brought information regarding this sale on the next day of the transaction, i.e. 13‑8‑1993 upon which he (P.W.2) was informed by the plaintiff/petitioner that he (P.W.3) already knew about this transaction. This admission of P.W.2 clearly shows that plaintiff/ petitioner had the knowledge of this sale on 12‑8‑1993. According to section 13 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 Talb‑i- Muwathibat has to be made as soon as the pre‑emptor comes to know about the sale. Thus, as the plaintiff/petitioner came to know about this sale on 12‑8‑1993, so he was bound to make such Talb on 12‑8‑1993. In the instant case Talb‑i‑Muwathibat has been made after 9 days of the knowledge of this transaction on the part of plaintiff/petitioner. Thus, plaintiff/petitioner has not fulfilled Talb‑i‑Muwathibat as required by section 13 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991. On this short ground the suit was liable to be dismissed. Both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with law. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1032/L