1994 PLP 1460 (SCMR)

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th November, 1991. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances:

1. Noor Muhammad etc. appellants purchased land measuring 200 Kanals in village Lal Saggu, Tehsil Mailsi on 14‑12‑1971. Mohammad Siddique etc. respondents filed a suit for pre‑emption on 11‑12‑1972 claiming superior right of pre‑emption. The appellants refused the claim. An issue was framed as to "whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre‑emption"? Respondents produced Exh.P‑1 to Exh.P‑3, copies of Jamabandies showing their ownership in the estate. The appellants said that they were the tenants of the land, but failed to prove the assertion. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 27‑11‑1982. The appellants' first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree dated 4‑2‑1985. They filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench at Multan bearing No. R.SA.. No. 37 of 1985. It was dismissed by a learned Judge vide judgment and decree dated 9‑3‑1985. The appellants filed a civil petition for leave to appeal which was initially dismissed but on review allowed and they were granted leave to appeal vide order dated 31‑8‑1988.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants had also become owners in the estate on 30‑3‑1972 by purchase of some of the land before the filing of the suit on 11‑12‑1972.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this plea was not taken in the written statement. It is too late in the day to urge it now.

4. The learned Judge in the High Court disposed of the second appeal with the following observations that "the respondents claimed that they were owners of the estate where the suit land lay and, therefore, enjoyed right of pre‑emption superior to that of the appellants who were strangers. The appellants asserted themselves to be in occupation of the land as tenant and consequently they denied the preferential pre‑emptive right of the respondents". The learned Judge further observed that "the respondents proved with the aid of entires of record of rights (copies Exh.P.‑1 to Exh. P3) that they owned land in village Lal Saggu. On the other hand, the appellants failed to establish themselves by documentary evidence that they were tenants of the land when the sale took place. Their names did not appear in the Khasra Girdawari register as tenants at the time of sale. In these circumstances, the learned trial and the appellate Courts below were quite right in accepting the superiority of the pre‑emptive right of the respondents. The decision of the learned Courts do not demand any interference by this Court. This appeal is without any force and is dismissed in limine". Nothing has been shown as to how the finding on the basis of the pleadings of the parties is erroneous to call for interference by this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./N‑369/S Appeal dismissed.