1998 PLP 1077 (MLD)

Heard:

2. This revision petition has come up for hearing in motion. The brief facts are that the petitioner/pre-emptor filed a suit for pre-emption against the respondent/vendee to pre-empt a plot of land measuring 1 Kanal 15 Marlas sold for an ostensible price of Rs.80,

000. The suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the demands (Talibs) as required by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 were not made upon the vendee/defendant before the institution of the suit; and that the petitioner did not have superior right of pre-emption qua the defendant/vendee as the latter-was a ' Shaft Khalit', whereas, the pre-emptor was a ' Shafi Jar'. The findings of the learned trial Judge were confirmed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28-11-1996 andthe appeal was resultantly dismissed. Hence this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a confusion about the date of sale and the date of knowledge regarding such sale on the part of the pre-emptor. In this regard, it was contended that the pre- emptor gained the knowledge about the sale on 14-12-1992 and as such, had made a demand immediately to pre-empt the land in question in presence of the P.Ws. on the same date of knowledge. It was, therefore, contended that the Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad were rightly given to the vendee/defendant and as such, the learned courts below fell in error to hold that no such demands were given in time. It was, therefore, submitted that the orders of the Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the sale in dispute was made through a registered sale-deed which was executed on 12-11-1992 and was attested before the Registrar on 14-11-1992. The registration of the sale-deed is a notice to the public-at-large and as such, it would impart knowledge to all the intending pre-emptors. Any how, in this case, the pre-emptor/petitioner contended that he had come to know about the sale in question on 14-12-1992 and had announced on the same day that he would pre -empt the land. However, he stands rebutted when he himself stated during the cross-examination that the sale in question had taken place through a registered sale-deed on 14-11-1992 and that he had come to know about the sale on the next following day of the attestation of the registered sale-deed. This knowledge he had gathered from a brother of the vendor. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner/pre-emptor had come to know about the execution and attestation of the registered sale-deed through a brother of the vendor on the next following day of the registration of the sale-deed. It appears that the Talb-i-Ishhad through a notice (Exh. P. 1) was given on 19-12-1992 and to cover this delay, it has been contended in the plaint that the plaintiff/pre-emptor came to know about the sale on 14-12-1992. Again, he stands rebutted from the aforesaid notice where it is f clearly mentioned that the sale had taken place through the registered sale-deed executed on 12-11-1992 and registered on 14-11-1992. It follows that a lame excuse has been invented to escape from the provisions contained in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 by showing that the petitioner had come to know about the sale at the time of registration which took place allegedly on 14-12-1992. Had the pre-emptor/petitioner gained the knowledge of registered sale-deed on 14-12-1992, he should have not stated in the notice that the sale had taken place vide registered sale-deed dated 14-11-1992. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner/plaintiff cannot take advantage of this situation because documents will never tell a lie but the people may do. In the instant case, the hallow-ness of the pre-emptor's plea that he came to know about the sale on 14-12-1992 stands exposed through the notice Exh. P.I served by him on 19-12-1992 showing that the sale-deed was executed on 12-11-1992 and was registered on 14-11-1992. If it is so, then it is clear enough to say that the Talb-i-Muwathibat made on 14-12-1992 or 15-12-1992 was not in accordance with the provisions of law' as it was belated by about a month, whereas, the law requires that it shall be made immediately on learning about the sale of the land. It is, therefore, obvious that both the Courts below had rightly held that the demands in question were not served in accordance with law, thereby, extinguishing the right of pre- emption of the petitioner/pre-emptor.

5. It is also clear from the evidence that the respondent ha s a right of passage attached to the land in question and, as such, he has rightly been held as 'Shaft Khalit' which has a superior right of pre-emption qua Shafi Jar which has the basis on the contiguity of property. The petitioner/pre-emptor had claimed his right of pre-emption as his property was allegedly adjacent to the plot in question, whereas, the defendant has a special right of passage as held by the Courts below.

6. In view of the above facts, both the Courts below have rightly decided the controversial issues between the parties, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality, latent or patent, so as to call for interference on the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.A./M-573/L Revision dismissed.