1982 PLP 1645 (CLC)

3. The learned trial Court had framed the following issues :‑ (1) Whether both the suits are correctly valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction ? O.P.P. (2) Whether both the suits are time‑barred ? OPD (3) Whether both the suits are for the benefit and at the expense of the vendees ? O.P.P. (4) Whether Syed Muhammad Mehdi, the rival pre‑emptor has waived his right ? O.P.P. , (5) Whether both the pre‑emptors have superior right of pre‑emption qua the vendees, if so, what is their position inter se ? O.P.P. (6) Whether the ostensible sale price of Rs. 8,000 was fixed in good faith or paid ? O.P.D. (7) Market value ? O.P.P. (8) Whether the vendees have effected improvements upon the land in suit, if so, to what extent and effect? O.P.D. (9) Relief. llsstlts Not. 1 and 2 were decided against the petitioners. While deciding issue No. 5, it was held that Syed Muhammad Mehdi respondent No. 1 bad the first preferential right. So far as issues Nos. 6 and 7 are concern ed, sale price mentioned in the mutation was admitted by the pre‑emptors, issues were disposed of accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suits were clearly barred by time. He explains that the sale was effected on 3rd October, 1972 when this transaction was got entered in the mutation by Hassan Ahmad and Mst. Kaneez the vendors and that the possession was delivered to the petitioners on that date. However, the mutation was sanctioned on 21st September, 1974. Learned counsel submits that the suits having been filed on 20th September, 1975 were thus clearly barred by time. Reliance is placed on the entry in the mutation and khasra girdawari Annex : D‑1. 5. 1 have considered the arguments and have gone through the mutation No. 180 as well as, khasra girdawari Annex. D

1. I find that Hassan Ahmad on whose report the transaction of the sale was entered in the mutation in the last column of the document was not produced to. support the entry and the same thus cannot be taken into consideration. Khasra girdawari Annex. D1 shows that in Kharif 1972 and 1973 the and was under cultivation of one Muhammad Ali as a tenant. It appears from the khasra girdawari that on 3rd October, 1972, i.e. Kharif 1972 and Rabi 1973, the suit land being in possession of tenant was not capable of physical possession and that the petitioners were not delivered the physical possession of the suit land, and the limitation would, therefore, start from the date of attestation of the mutation, i.e. 21st September, 1974 and suit having been brought on 20th September, 1975 was well within time. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel. I find that both the Courts below have applied their minds to the factual and legal B aspect of the matter, given cogent reasons in support of their decisions and have properly read the evidence. It is not a fit case for interference under section 115, C. P. C. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed