2004 PLP 1367 (YLR)

(3) If Issue No.2 is not proved, what is correct value of actually sale price of the land in suit? O. Parties. (4) Whether the defendants Nos.1 to 5 have spent Rs.12000 on the Improvement of the land in suit and with what effect? OPD 1 to 5 (5) Whether the land in dispute is not pre‑emptor? OPD 1 to 5 (6) Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.6 has waived their right of pre emption? OPD 1 to 5 (6‑A) Whether the Suit No.982/1 of 1969 is within time? OPP (6‑B) Whether defendant No.6 has superior right of pre‑emption as compared to defendants Nos. 1 to 5? OPD The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22‑5‑1980 decreed the suit of Muhammad Azam/respondent and in case of his failure to deposit the sale price in the stipulated period, the suit of Muhammad Afzal (rival pre‑emptor) shall be deemed to have been decreed. The decree dated 20‑5‑1980 was set aside on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Kasur vide judgment dated 14‑2‑1984 and the case was remanded for decision, afresh on Issue No.6‑A. The learned trial Court on remand decided the Issue No.6‑A in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree in favour of Muhammad Azam, respondent (pre‑emptor) on payment of Rs.31,000 within two months failing which his suit would stand dismissed and a decree shall be deemed to have been granted to Muhammad Afzal (rival pre‑emptor) vide judgment dated 13‑10‑2000. Two appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Kasur which came up for hearing before Jahandad Khan, Additional District Judge, Kasur who vide his judgment dated 20‑3‑2003 dismissed both the appeals.

3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Nagi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit was not maintainable as Muhammad Azam, plaintiff was minor at the time of the filing of the suit. He further argued that the suit was barred by time as the possession of the suit‑land was handed over to vendees on 19‑9‑1968, the suit was filed on 20‑9‑1969. Learned counsel for Muhammad Javed, vendee (petitioner in Civil Revision No.1445 of 2002) contended that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to lead his evidence and thus he was condemned unheard. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgments.

4. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to 'Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati' dated 19‑9‑1968, Exh.D.2/4 showing that the possession of the suit‑land was handed over to Muhammad Younas etc. This contention of the learned counsel has no merit. The sale‑deed Exh.P.4 was executed on 20‑9‑1968. It was registered on 21‑9‑1968. The sale‑deed clearly recites that the possession of the land has been delivered to the vendees from today i.e. 20‑9‑1968 the date of execution of the document. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly relied on Qazi Muhammad Daud and another v. Muhammad Ayub and others 1985 SCMR 1966. The observation of the Honourable Supreme Court is as under:‑‑ "Admittedly, in the instant case there is no independent evidence of physical possession having been delivered of the property under the sale. The view taken by the Courts below that the terminus a quo for limitation was the date of registration is, therefore, not upon to interference." In the instant case there is also no evidence to prove the delivery of the physical possession on 19‑9‑1968. This report has been filed by the Lamberdar who had no concern with the matter. Under section 42 .of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 any person acquiring by purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise any right in an estate as land owner or was a tenant for a fixed term exceeding one year shall within three months from the date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of the right to the Patwari of the estate. In my view the delivery of the possession on 19‑9‑1968 has not been proved on the record. The next plea of the learned counsel that the suit was filed by Muhammad Azam when he was minor also has no merit. The learned Additional District Judge has dealt with this point and held that the matter already stands settled by his predecessor Mr. Javaid Iqbal Siddiqui vide order dated 28‑1‑1985 which was not further challenged as such attained finality. As far as the contention of the learned counsel in Civil Revision No.1445 of 2002 is concerned suffice to say that he has withdrawn the pre‑emption money. After remand of the case though he appeared in the Court but did not participate in the proceedings. He did not challenge the earlier decree or the decree under challenge. In this view of the matter no right of his has been infringed. The learned Additional District Judge has given a well‑reasoned judgment and I am not inclined to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly these petitions have no merit and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.I./M‑2269/L Revision dismissed.