' This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 1-10-1996, passed by Additional District Judge, Okara Camp at Depalpur, whereby the appeal of the petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his sole legal representative) against the judgment and decree, dated 22-7-1993 passed by Civil Judge, Depalpur, dismissing his suit for possession through pre-emption, was dismissed with costs.
2. The relevant facts are that the vendor Mst. Razia Bibi, daughter in law of deceased petitioner, sold her land measuring, 84 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in Mauza Sher Nagar, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara, detailed in the plaint, to respondent Muhammad Sharif for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000, vide registered sale-deed, dated 28-1-1988. The said sale was pre-empted by the deceased petitioner Muhammad Din through the present suit for possession through pre- emption, instituted on 3-10-1988, on the basis of being a co-sharer in the Khewat and having common passage and common irrigation sources. The petitioner alleged that he came to know of the sale six months prior to the institution of the suit and he immediately raised Talb-i-Muwathibat and later on, he along with two witnesses offered Rs.1,00,000 to the respondent, but he refused to take the money and transferred the land to the petitioner. The suit was contested by the respondent. Superior right of the petitioner was also denied. The suit was initially dismissed on 25-7-1990, on the ground that no decree could be passed in favour of the preemptor, as pre-emption law stood declared, as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in the judgment of Saad Kamal Shah. However, the suit was subsequently restored on 3-10-1992 under section 36 of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance No.XVIII of 1990.
3. The learned trial Court out of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption qua the defendants? OPP
(2) Whether the present suit has been instituted in accordance with Islamic Law after fulfilling three Talbs? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is under valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(4) Whether the defendant made the improvements over the suit-land, if so to what extent? OPD
(5) Whether the defendant is entitled to get incidental charges of registry Rs.15,000? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the present suit? OPD
(7) Relief.
4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence produced by both the parties and after hearing the arguments of their learned counsel, vide its judgment and decree, dated 22-7-1993, dismissed the suit, on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the making of Talb-i- Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, hence his right to preempt the sale stood extinguished. The petitioner's appeal, as mentioned above, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Okara.
Camp at Depalpur, vide his judgment and decree, dated 1-10-1996. The findings of fact, as recorded by the learned trial Court, have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent and have also seen the relevant record with their help.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had proved his first demand through the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 and the Courts belOw acted illegally in discarding the same. The contentions have been opposed.
7. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force and this petition has no merit. The petitioner himself appeared as P.W.3. He stated that he came to know of the sale three months 'thereafter. He explained that he and Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.5) were sitting in his house when Muhammad Ali (P.W.4) came there and informed them that the petitioner's daughter-in-law had sold the land in *dispute, he thereafter went inside his house, brought out Rs. 1,00,000 and took Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Sarwar along with him to the respondent and asked the respondent to receive Rs.1,00,000 and transfer tte land, who refused to do the same. The petitioner did not state that on acquiring the knowledge of sale in the above said meeting in his house, he immediately made Talb-i-Muwathibat. His deposition does not fulfil the requirements of Talb-i- Muwathibat, as he did not declare his intention to pre-empt the sale, at the time when he acquired the knowledge of sale, in his house. The depositions of P.W.4 Muhammad Ali and P.W.5 Muhammad Sarwar, to the effect that_ the petitioner declared his intention of pre-empting the sale there and then in his house, at the time of acquiring knowledge of sale, from Muhammad Sarwar, are merely improvements on the statement of the petitioner and are afterthought. Their statements were recorded after the statement of the petitioner. The Courts below have correctly disbelieved them, in this regard, and have correctly held that the petitioner had failed to establish the making of Talb-i- Muwathibat, which under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, means "immediate demand by a pre- emptor, in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of preemption". The Courts below thus drew the correct conclusion from the evidence available on record and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by them do not suffer from any irregularity, illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence, to warrant interference of this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
8. In view of the above mentioned, I see no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed with costs.