1988 PLP 1731 (MLD)

This judgment will dispose of this revision petition as well as two connected revision petitions (Criminal Revision 589‑D and 590‑D of 1988) as questions of facts and law involved in all these petitions are one and the same,

2. The necessary facts briefly stated are that Khurshid Bibi, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Bashir, respondents, in these revision petitions purchased their respective properties for Rs.14,000 each vide registered sale‑deeds dated 13 3‑1978. Muhammad Iqbal Butt, petitioner, Filed three separate suits on 21‑11 1978 to pre‑empt these sales on the ground that lie being the owner in possession of major portion of Property No. 705‑A, inside Taxali Gate, Lahore, was possessed of the superior right of pre‑emption as against the defendants/respondents. The suits were resisted by the defendants/respondents inter alia on the ground that the properties/portions purchased by them arc independent and have got no concern with the property of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court after framing, the necessary issues and recording the evidence, decreed the suits vide judgments and decrees dated 25‑1‑1982. On appeals of the defendants/ respondents, they were allowed to amend the written statement so as to include the plea that the Property No. 705/A is a big Katri and the suit is barred under section 5 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. This necessitated the remand of the suits. The judgments and decrees of the trial Court were set aside and the suits were consequently remanded for fresh trial. The issues, whether the custom of pre‑emption exists in the locality, whether the plaintiff has got a preferential right of pre‑emption and, whether Property No. 705/A is a Katri, if sc,, whether the suit is barred under section 5 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, were framed in addition to the issues pertaining to the price actually paid. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence, dismissed the suits m view of his finding returned on issue No. 3‑A. This was done vide judgments and decrees dated 14‑10‑1986. Muhammad Iqbal, pre‑emptor/petitioner then filed three appeals but the same were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgments and decrees dated 19‑1‑1988. This led to the filing of the present revision petitions.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the copies of the evidence and pleadings available on the files of these revision petitions. The petitioner/plaintiff claimed superior right of pre‑emption on the ground that he is owner in possession of major portion of property No. 705/A. Muhammad Sadiq, (P.W.1) in his examination‑m‑chief, admitted that this property is known as `Katri Zahoor Sons'. This also emerges from the statement of Muhammad Aslam (P.W.2), the brother of pre‑emptor as well as from the statement of Qamar Din, special attorney of the defendants. "Katri" signifies a complex constituted by a block of buildings. The term is to be given the meaning which it receives in the ordinary parlance. In Karim Ahmad v. Rehmat Elahi A I R 1946 Lah. 432, it was observed that, the term is to be given the ordinary dictionary meaning and that meaning is of an enclosure. In other words, where within an enclosure a number of trade or residential buildings are constructed with one entrance and the quarter is styled as a Katra, it falls within the exemption provided in section 5 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act". From this accepted connotation of the term "Katri" it is apparent that the entire enclosure or complex cannot be treated as a "building" within the meaning and for the purposes of clause secondly of section 16 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. The respondents/defendants have admittedly purchased independent buildings situated in the Katri, each building so purchased has as such independent existence and the petitioner being owner of another independent building though located in the same Katri (enclosure) cannot claim benefit of clause secondly of section 16 of the Act. This clause implies that the owner of structure or building, on site is like a co‑owner of the property sold and his right of pre‑emption is inferior only to a co‑sharer therein. It will be noted that the petitioner did not claim right of pre‑emption on any other ground recognized by other clauses of section

16. The ground urged does not fall under any clause of section 16 of the Act. The suits filed by the petitioner, therefore, cannot succeed. In view of the above finding, the other questions raised in these revision petitions need not be gone into.

4. For the reasons given above, these revision petitions being without merit are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑953/L Revision dismissed.