1990 PLP 1247 (CLC)

On 22‑12‑1982, Gaman petitioner filed suit for possession by pre emption of agricultural land situate in village Nowshera, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur on the basis of Sharik Khata and Sharik Mauza, against Muhammad Ramzan respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur. The suit was resisted, 11 issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30‑11‑1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Ramzan respondent filed appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 19 10‑1986 and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed, hence this revision.

2. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned District Judge on issue No.l which is as under:‑ "Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre‑emption?" Learned counsel argued that the finding of the learned Appellate Court that the petitioner/defendant had not acquired full ownership in the Khata by the time of the sale of the suit land is against law; that the petitioner had purchased land in the Khata in the year, 1970; that he is in continuous possession of the land sin Khata since 1970; that by the time the suit land was purchased by Muhammad Ramzan respondent, title of the petitioner/plaintiff was mature and that Notification No.20, issued in Bahawalpur Government Gazette in the year, 1932 requiring the registration of sale of immovable property of the value of more than Rs.100 having been cancelled in the year, 1979, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not co‑sharer.

3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that there is no document on record to show that before the sale of the suit land, which is the subject‑matter of the present revision, the petitioner had purchased the land in the same Khata through registered sale‑deed and that vide Notification No.20 of the Government of Bahawalpur (as it then was), the sale of immovable property of the value of more than 100 was required to be registered and ownership could not be transferred through mutation. This notification was very much in force A when the petitioner/plaintiff allegedly purchased the land in the Khata in the year, 1970. The notification of Government of Bahawalpur was cancelled in the year, 1979. The petitioner has not been able to prove his continuous adverse possession over the land in Khata before the date of sale of the suit land. The learned District Judge was quite competent to reverse the findings of the trial Court on issue No.l. The learned District Judge has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by him. He has applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and the relevant law laid down by the superior Courts. I do not see any infirmity in the judgment of the Appellate Court. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the judgment of the learned District Judge. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine. AA./G‑325/L Revision dismissed.