P L D 1975 Lahore 377 (PLP)

These two appeals (being Regular Second Appeals Nos. 17 and 18 of 1964) can be conveniently disposed of together. The appellant pre-empted two transactions of sale by Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Siddique respecting in favour of the respondents in both the appeals. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove his preferential right of pre-emption on the basis of ownership in the .estate as alleged in the two plaints. The learned District Judge has affirmed the decrees and the appellant has now come up to this Court in second appeal.

2. The only question raised in these appeals is that although the appellant had sold his holding in the estate sometimes in 1932, which trans action is evidenced by mutation No. 123 sanctioned on the 26th of December 1932 he had not transferred his share in the shamilat in the estate and as such he continued to be an owner in the village and the Courts below have erred in law in misconstruing the fard badar (Exh. P. 1), which operates retrospectively and goes to show that the error as to ownership of shamilat in the estate entered in the Jamabandi of 1956-57 stood corrected with back date effect from 26-12-1932.

3. The respondents are not represented before me and I have had not the advantage of hearing them. There may be some force in the contention that a fard badar mainly supplies the omission and is retrospective in operation but there is no denying the fact that its evidentiary value has to be determined in each case. I find from the record that the transaction of sale is dated the 26th of December 1932 and the fard badar is said to have been prepared and attested by the Revenue Officer on the 7th of December 1961, i e., after the transactions of sale in dispute. The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that it is not a valid document. The reason is not far to seek. A case of correction of entries in the Jamabandi by marts of a fard badar as to the share in shamilat having been included or not in the sale transaction is not covered by rule 7.28 of Chapter VII of the Punjab Land Record Manual, .detailing cases where no mutations are necessary, Rule 7.29 clearly pro vides that Jamabandi entries not enumerated in Rule 7.28 should not be varied in subsequent records without first obtaining orders for their variation on mutations entered for this purpose except where the variation mere consists in the removal of a clerical mistake i.e., of a mistake which had been made in copying the entries of one Jamabandi into another or in. incorporating a mutation in a Jamabandi and the correction of which does :not involve the alteration of any mutation order. The appellant has himself admitted that after the sale of his holding he had not remained in possession of any parcel of land in the estate. The entry in the mutation No. 123 . (Exh. D. 3) does not expressly state that hissa shamilat has been retained by the vendor. On these facts it could not have been said that it was a case of rectification of a clerical error in incorporating a mutation in the Jama bandi. Fard badar Exh. P. 1, has been prepared in violation of the rule on the subject. The Courts below have not accepted the document as having in any manner altered the status of the: appellant of not being an owner in the estate at the time of sale and I do not feel persuaded to took a that finding with disfavour. The appeals are without merit and are dismissed. S A. H. Appeals dismissed.