1980 PLP 999 (CLC)

(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

S. 8 (2) read with Notification dated 12-2-1968 issued under S. E(2)-Pre-emption-Notification extending limits of municipality, effect of-Notification, held, exempts sale of property whether made '' before or after Notification and applies to suits filed before date of Notification except when decree already obtained. Bibi Jan v. R. A. Monny P L f5 1961 S C 69 and Muhammad SNleman etc. v. Abdul Ghani P L D 1978 S C 190 Malik Sher Bahadar for Appellant, Abdul Waheed Butt for Respondent, Date of hearing : 17th June, 1979, This second appeal by Aftab Ahmad plaintiff' arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption which was dismissed by learned trial Judge with the view that the impugned sale was not subject to the right of pre emption, and appeal to challenge judgment of learned trial Judge was also dismissed by learned Court of first appeal (Additional District Judge). 2. In a nutshell, sale of land measuring two Kanals and 1 Maria in Khasra No. 151/1, Khatuni No. 368/357 in the revenue estate of Aaduwal, Tehsil and District Gujrat, which lay on the Grand Trunk Road registered in favour of Rehmat Ali on 19th November, 1970 in con sideration of Rs. 12,300 was the subject-matter of the case leading to this appeal. Aftab Ahmad appellant filed this suit on 18th November 1971 to enforce his right of pre-emption over the sale on the ground that he was an owner in the estate and also a co-sharer in the Khata in which the land was situated while the defend ant-vendee (respondent) was a stranger. The appellant also contended that the sale price was exaggerated in the docu ment evidencing the sale. The respondent contested the suit upon inter alia, the ground that: the sale was not pre-emptible as the land in suit was included in urban (Municipal) area of Gujrat. A number of issues were raised by learned trial Judge for disposal of the suit. In this appeal, we are, however, concerned only with the solitary question of pre-emptibility or otherwise of the impugned sale (Issue No. 2). Pre-emptive qualifications of the appellant were accepted by learned trial Judge and that appellant does not challenge the finding that sale price stated in the sale deed was paid It appears that the limy s f Municipality Gujrat were modified extended from time to time. The last notification (D. 4) was issued on 30th September, 1971 when the suit of the appellant was pending decision. The respondent contended that under this notification the locality where the land was situated was included in the Municipality of Gujrat. The respondent produced copy of Jamabandi (D. 2) bearing a note of the Patwari that the land in suit was included in the Municipality of Gujrat. The appellant relied on copy of Jamabandi (P. 2) with a contrary note that the land in suit lay outside the limits of Municipality of Gujrat. Both Courts below have upheld the contention of the respondent. I am bound by these concurrent findings of the two Courts below on a question of fact which are based on I)roper consideration of evidence. Copy of Jamabandi (Ex, P. 2) relied on by the appellant to refute the contention of the respondent been obtained by the pre-emptor. The judgment in the case of Muhammad Suleman etc. v. Abdul Ghani (P L D 1978 S C 190), referred to by learned counsel for the appellant deals with entirely a different matter whether notification debarring right of preemption will be effective from the date of notification or from the date when published in official Gazette. 5. 1n the result, I bold that the appellant was rightly non-suited as he had ceased to retain superiority of his claim till the end of the suit and affirm the findings of the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed with costs. M. A. K Appeal dismissed,