' Mst. Kako Bibi and others, petitioners/plaintiffs, through the filing of the present revision petition, have called in question judgment and decree dated 27-3-1991, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed their appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 3-11-1987, passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he dismissed petitioner's suit.
2. The petitioners, claiming to be the owners in possession of the land measuring 40 Kanals, on the basis of pre-emption decree dated 24-4-1969 and subsequent decree dated 28-6-1978. Filed a suit claiming a declaratory decree to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit-land and that the entries in the Revenue Record, in the names of the respondents, are illegal and void. It was asserted in the suit that Mehboob Ali, as owner of the property, transferred the same in favour of the respondent No.1; that Yaqoob, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, obtained a pre- emption decree on 24-4-1969 and pursuant to the said decree, the possession was delivered to Yaqoob. Subsequently a declaratory decree was passed in favour of the petitioners on the basis of conceding statement made by Qamar-ul-Hasnain, respondent No.1,. On 28-6-1978. According to the petitioners, as, the said decrees were not implemented in the Revenue Record and their possession qua the land in question was threatened, therefore, they filed the latest suit.
Respondents Nos.3 and 4 contested the suit contending therein that Safdar Ali son of Ulfat Ali was the original owner of the total land and he transferred and mutated the total land in favour of his brother Shafqat Ali, through Mutation No.748 dated 20-1-1965, by way of protection of proprietary rights till life. Out of the said land Shafqat Ali, subsequently, exchanged the land, measuring 152 Kanals, through Mutation No.793 attested on 31-7-1966 with his brother Mehboob Ali Khan, who then transferred the disputed land, measuring 40 Kanals, in favour of respondent No.1, vide Mutation No.805 attested on 30-12-1966. The respondent No.1 sold the property in favour of Sarwar.
Thereafter Yaqoob, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, obtained a preemption decree on 24-4-1969. Shafqat Ali, brother of Safdar Ali, died on 19-3-1967 and after his death the entire property reverted back to Safdar Ali and subsequently aforementioned mutations were cancelled.
Resultantly the mutation of exchange, between the Shafqat Ali and Mehboob Ali Khan, was also cancelled and the said land reverted to Safdar Ali. Similarly gift made by Mehboob Ali Khan in favour of Qamar-ul-Hasnain also came to an end. Thereafter Safdar Ai sold his entire property in favour of respondent No.3 vide Mutation No.1 for a consideration of Rs.90,000, hence the suit.
It was also the case of the contesting respondents that the suit is barred by time. The learned trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately dismissed petitioner's suit vide judgment and decree dated 3-11-1987. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 27-3-1991, hence the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the decree for pre-emption, passed in favour of Yaqoob, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, was never set aside and remained intact thus during the subsistence of that decree, sale could not have been made regarding the suit-land. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents, while narrating the aforenoted defence of the defendants, has submitted that as all the mutations were cancelled and the property was reverted back to Safdar Ali, therefore, he was competent to sell the property to respondents Nos.3 and 4, notwithstanding the passing of pre-emption decree. He has further submitted that as Shafqat Ali had no authority to transfer or exchange the land in question, therefore, the subsequent transactions have no legal value.
4. In view of the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel, I have examined the available record and the impugned judgments. Pre-emption decree was passed in favour of Yaqoob on 24-4-1969; Shafqat Ali, in whose favour, the land was mutated by way of protection of proprietary rights till life, died on 19-3-1967, Mutation No.793 attested on 31-10-1966 in the name of Shafqat Ali was reviewed and cancelled by the Revenue Authorities on 8-4-1969 and the property reverted back to Shafqat Ali. It means that Shafqat Ali became the owner of the total land, including the land in dispute, since 8-4-1969, as the said order of review was never challenged by any person before higher competent Authority. It flows therefrom that when the pre-emption decree was passed on 24-4-1969, Shafqat Ali, who allegedly exchanged the land with Mehboob Ali Khan, who in turn gifted the property in question in favour of Qamar-ulHasnain, was neither alive nor the owner of the questioned land, therefore, the decree of pre-emption had no legal value.
Safdar Ali, who was the real owner of the property and in whose favour, the same was reverted since 8-4-1969, was not party in the preemption suit and therefore, fact of reversion of property, as noted above, could not brought to the notice of the Court, which passed the pre-emption decree.
In view whereof, although the preemption decree passed in favour of Yaqoob was not challenged yet it was a void decree and thus has no legal value. It has been held in Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others PLD 1958 SC 104 that:-- "And if on the basis of a void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same Authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them, must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal the changed position of the parties is in operation, fall to the ground because such orders have as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded."
' In view of the law declared, as the basic order was a void order, therefore, the ensuing order would not be sustainable in law. Additionally, the learned Additional District Judge has also dealt with the plea raised by the learned counsel of the appellant and has rightly held that the decree holder could not get more rights than the vendor. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion, which reads as follows:-- "No doubt, the appellants had a pre-emption decree, but they only stepped into the shoes of the vendor. They could not get more rights than the vendor had in the property. Original owner of this property was Safdar. Subsequent transaction by Shafqat Ali in favour of Mehboob Ali Khan by way of exchange was a nullity in the eye of law. Similarly, the gift by Mehboob Ali Khan in favour of Qamar-ul-Hasnain was also a nullity as his title was a weak title."
In the above perspective, the solitary contention raised by the learned counsel is devoid of any substance, hence repelled.
5. There is yet another aspect of the case. The suit instituted by the petitioners on 12-5-1981, on the basis of a pre-emption decree dated 24-4-1969, was barred by time. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the suit for declaration could be filed within 6 years, per force of Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial Court has rightly decided Issue No.3 while taking into consideration the relevant dates and the learned Appellate Court was justified in confirming the said findings.
6. I have also examined the impugned judgments and find that both the Courts have adverted to every aspect of the case, rightly embarked upon the issues involved in the case and decided the same, after taking into consideration the facts of the case and law on the subject, through reasoned judgments, which are not open to exception. Both the Courts have properly adverted to the evidence on record, appreciated the same in its true perspective and rendered issue-wise findings, which to my mind, do not call for any interference. Judgments rendered by both the Courts are not only in accordance with the record of the case, but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject. Both the judgments are hereby maintained.
7. It is settled law that the findings on questions of fact or law recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be those findings suffer from jurisdictional interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless defect, illegality or material regularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique v. Aamer Shahzad and others 1999 YLR 610.
8. The concurrent findings of, facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned trial Court. No case of misreading and C non-reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has been attributed.
9. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others 2000 SCM R 346; Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCM R 431; Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647; Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314; Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329; Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC 293.
10. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is devoid of any merits, thus, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.