2005 PLP 1710 (MLD)

This judgment shall decide Civil Revision No.84-D of 1991, R.S.A. No.8 of 1991 and R.S.A No.10 of 1991 as a common question is involved and all these matters were ordered to be heard together.

2. The relevant facts of these cases are as follows:-- (a) C.R. No.84 of 1991. The petitioner purchased suit-land measuring 63 Kanals, 16 Marlas vide registered sale-deed dated 11-12-1979 for a consideration of Rs.80,

000. The suit for possession by pre-emption was filed by Ali Muhammad deceased respondent on 22-11-1980. (b) R.S.A No.8 of 1991 The appellants purchased land measuring 127 Kanals, 12 Marlas vide registered sale-deed dated 26-3-1979 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,

000. The suit was filed on 24-3-1980. (c) R.S.A No.10 of 1991. The appellants purchased suit-land measuring 112 Kanals for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000 vide registered sale-deed dated 8-4-1979. The suit was filed on 24-3-1980.

3. In all these three cases right of pre-emption was claimed on the basis of ownership in the estate. In all these cases issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. All the three suits were decreed vide judgments and decrees dated 18-1-1986. First appeals, filed by the petitioners were dismissed by learned District Judge Vehari, on 25-2-1991.

4. Mr. Amin-ud-Din Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the appellants in these cases contends that the copies of Register Haqdaran Zamin respectively Exh.P.1, Exh.P.2 and Exh.P.E in all these cases would show that the land-owned by the respondent /pre-emptor was not assessed to land revenue and ownership of such land would not make him an owner in the estate. It has also been sought to be argued in a half-hearted manner that the sales were divisible. Sahibzada Mehboob Ali Khan, learned counsel for the respondent in all these cases, on the other hand, relies on the cases of Ghulam Hussain Arshad and others v. Allah Ditta and others (1993 SCMR 1486) and Muhammad Hassan and 12 others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and another (2003 CLC 1073) to urge that notwithstanding the fact that the relevant column has been left blank in the said copies. Admittedly, the land being agricultural in nature, his client is owner in the estate. So far as the second contention is concerned, according to the learned counsel, no foundations have been laid and there is no proof that the price was paid separately. Relies on the cases of Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others (PLD 1968 SC 140) and Ahmad and others v. Ghulam Haider (1972 SCMR 357).

5. I have examined the copies of the records, appended with the civil revision and the records summoned in the R.S.As. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The entire 104 Kanals and 1 Marla of land-owned by the respondent is classified as Nehri or Nul Nehri being cultivated by tenants at will paying share produce. In the column of Lagan, it is mentioned that the owner is liable to provide the seed and to dig the Khal while the tenant is to maintain and clean the same.

6. There is, of course, no plea that the land is not agricultural. This being so, the said judgments being relied upon by. the learned counsel for the respondent are squarely applicable and the respondent is an owner in the estate.

7. So far as the second contention is concerned, there is not even a plea that the sale is divisible within the meaning of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. The sale-deeds, of course, would go to show that the price was paid by the vendees jointly. No other point has been urged. The civil revision and both the R.S.As. are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M-1146/L Revision and Appeals dismissed.