MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- Vide registered sale deed dated 5-12-1996 the respondents purchased the suit land, mentioned in the plaint; for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- On 12-3-1997 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for possession by pre-emption. In the plaint it was stated that the land has actually been sold for Rs.. 1,00,000/-. He claimed to be a co sharer and owner of adjacent property. Performance of Talbs was pleaded. The respondents filed a written statement contesting the suit. They asserted that they had paid Rs.. 3,00,000/- for the land and incurred other expenditure. They denied the other contents of the plaint. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 19-5-1999 While a first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chakwal, on 26-11-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that The learned Courts below have failed to read the evidence in the matter of Talb-i-Muwathibat inasmuch as a trivial discrepancy has been made the basis to discard the entire evidence. He relies on the case of Abdul Qayum through legal Heirs vs. Mushk-e-Alam and another (2001 AG 589). In the matter of Talb-i-Ishhad he contends that the respondents were brothers and their address was duly mentioned in the sale deed through which they had purchased the land and it was on the said address that the notice was issued. Further contends that there is no denial on record by any of the respondents as to receipt of the notices. Mr. Hifz-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while finding it difficult to oppose the said two contentions, insists that upon an overall reading of the evidence, the truthfulness of the claim that a valid Talb- l-Muwathibat was made as stated becomes doubtful. He refers to the fact that there is no explanation, for the precise details, given in the notice, of the sale and the land.
3. I have gone through the available records. Now the only ground on which the entire evidence of the Talb-iMuwathibat has been discarded is that the petitioner stated that when he came out of the Mosque on the relevant date and was informed of the sale, PWs. 3 and 4 were present. Whereas the said two witnesses stated that they were not present rather were told by the petitioner that Hayat Muhammad had informed him of the sale. The witnesses were between 60 to 72 years of ages when they were examined. To my mind this can be termed as a natural variation as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case being relief upon by the learned counsel or the petitioner.
Similarly, the case of Muhammad Amir vs. Khan Bahadur an another (PLD 1996 SC 267) fully supports the contention of the learned counsel that a notice addressed to all the vendees at the given address in the sale deed is valid.
4. Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, according to Dost Muhammad petitioner as PW-I he was informed of the sale after -the morning prayer on 11-3-1997 when he was coming out of the Mosque. Thereafter he gathered his witnesses and came to the learned Advocate who scribed a notice. It was executed and attested and then posted. Now the petitioner when confronted in cross examination stated in categorical term that Hayat Muhammad had not told him the Khasra number and that he had only informed him of the area i.e. 25 kanals, 7 marlas and the consideration i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/-. He was further confronted and he confirmed that he had not taken any Fard or registered document to the Lawyer. He further stated that they had reached Chakwal at 9.00 a.m. PW. 2 is Hayat Muhammad. He says that he had not told the Khasra number and neither the consideration amount to the petitioner and that he is not aware whether it was a registered deed or a mutation.
5. Now it will be seen that Hayat Muhammad meets the petitioner after the Fajar prayer and tells him only this fact that 25 kanals 7 marlas has been sold. Both the witnesses i.e. The petitioner and the said Hayat Muhammad are silent as to the particulars of the vendor. No document was obtained before the petitioner and his witnesses reached the Advocate and all this happened on 11-3-1997. Now the copy of the notice is Ex.P.1. Now I find that in this notice the precise description given in the sale deed Ex.D.1 of the land including reference to the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 is present. One also notes that the vendees are mentioned in the same order as they are mentioned in the sale deed. Then one finds that it is mentioned that in the sale-deed. Then one finds that it is mentioned that the sale-had taken place by means of a registered sale deed dated 512-1996.
6. Now the extent of information given by Hayat Muhammad PW. 2 is there in his statement i.e. He only told him that as to how much area has been sold and nothing else. It is not the case of the petitioner that he acquired some knowledge regarding the particulars after the said meeting with Hayat Muhammad after the Fajar prayer. The only inference that can be drawn is that at a point of time before the said meeting with Hayat Muhammad somebody has provided information to the petitioner regarding the exact particulars of the land sold, the manner in which the land has been sold, the date of the sale-deed and the particulars of the area as mentioned in the sale-deed. This being so, the entire story narrated in the plaint and then in the witness-box by the petitioner and his witnesses becomes highly improbable and not believable.
7. For all that has been discussed above, it cannot be said while arriving at their ultimate conclusions any of the learned Lower Courts misread the evidence on record or in any manner acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their respective jurisdiction. The civil revision is dismissed without any orders as to costs. .