1986 PLP 1027 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 4th March 1986. Mst. Fatima Bibi respondent No.2 purchased the suit land measuring 15 Kanals and 14 Marlas from Ghulam Rasool and 3 others, the appellants, through registered sale‑deed, dated 12‑7‑1969. Mutation in this behalf was entered on .1‑10‑1 969 but could not be sanctioned on the ground that the transaction was hit by the provisions of M. L. R.‑

64. On this, Ghulam Rasool and others the vendors paid back the sale price to Mst. Fatima Bibi and obtained the possession of the suit land. On 14‑1‑1970, Suba respondent No.l filed suit for possession by pre‑emption against Mat. Fatima Bibi and others, on the basis of his preferencial right as co‑sharer in the estate. On the other hand Ghulam Rasool and others, the appellants]vendors filed suit for declaration that the sale in favour of Mst. Fatima Bibi being violative of the provisions of M.L.R.‑64, was void and illegal. The learned Civil Judg decreed the suit on compromise on 30‑4‑1973. The suit for pre‑emption was resisted, whereon following issues were framed: ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff has better right of pre‑emption as against the defendant? O.P.P. (2) Whether a sum of Rs. 9,812 was actually paid or fixed in goods faith? O.P.D. (3) What is the market value of the suit land? O.P. Parties. (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring the suit by his own conduct? O.P.P. (4‑A) Whether defendants Nos.2 to 5 in collusion with defendant No.1 is decree of this very suit land, if so its effect? was any sale of the suit land ? O.P.P. The parties led their evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession by pre‑emption for Rs.9.812 on 22‑4‑1975. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and decree. Ghulsm Rasool and others, appellants filed appeal before the learned District Judge which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, Gujrat who dismissed it on 8‑6‑1978, hence this second appeal.

2. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos.4‑A and 4‑B. He maintained that the transaction of sale by the appellants in favour of Mst. Fatima Bibi being violative of the provisions of MLR‑64, mutation of the transaction of sale was rightly rejected by the Revenue Officer and as such, the original sale having come to an end, the suit for possession by pre‑emption filed by Subs respondent No.1 was not maintainable. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and decrees of the Courts below.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care.' I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. I find that the declaratory decree with regard to the sale of the disputed property in favour of Mst. Fatima Bibi was obtained by the present appellants a the back of Suba respondent No.1. Although Subs had filed suit for possession by pre‑emption against them yet they did not implead him as party to the declaratory suit and that it is well‑settled that reversion of the suit land to the vendor or return thereof to the vendor by the vendee, does not defeat the right of the pre‑emptor. The learned Courts below have applied conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the relevant provisions of law and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them'. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any legs ' infirmity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. For all these reasons. I am convinced that issues Nos. 4‑A and 4‑B have rightly been decided by the Courts below

4. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. S.A. Appeal dismissed.