Vide registered sale-deed dated 28-7-1976 the , petitioners purchased the suit-land for a consideration of. Rs.80,000. On 28-7-1977 the respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit-land by pre-emption. They claimed to be co-owners in the Khata and owners in the estate. According to them, the land had been sold for Rs.54,000. . The petitioners in their written statement took the plea that the respondents were a party to the sale and the transaction was completed through them and they had promised that they will not file a suit. It was further stated that the transaction was delivered under the sale before the registration of the sale. Without specifying the amount costs of improvements were claimed. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 2-5-1985 subject to deposit of Rs.80,000 as price, Rs.4,000 as costs of improvements and Rs.3,600 as sale expenses. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned ADJ, Muzaffargarh, on 9-3-1988.
2. This civil revision was admitted to hearing on 27-3-1988 after noting the contention that talbs had not been pleaded. When confronted learned counsel concedes that the suit having been decreed on 2-5-1985 the said plea would not be available. He, however, contends that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in the matter of superior right of pre-emption and estoppel are erroneous. According to him, the sale was of specific field numbers by a single owners and as such the respondents were not co-sharers and they were not owners in the estate as the land was not assessed to land revenue. He relies on the cases of Ali Muhammad v. Shera and another (1987 SCM R 207) and Salehon Muhammad and others v. Khan Muhammad and others (1977 SCM R 297).
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there is no evidence of estoppel and admittedly the land in agricultural and as such his clients are owner's in the estate.
3. I have gone through the records. The learned counsel for the petitioners has very correctly argued that specific field numbers were first sold by a single owner to the respondents vide sale- deed Exh.P.6 and then specific fields were sold to the petitioners by means of sale-deed dated 28- 7-1976 (Exh.P.3). The petitioners obviously cannot be held to be co-owners in the suit-land in view of the said judgment in the case of Ali Muhammad. However, the learned counsel is on a weaker B footing while arguing that the land not being assessed to' land revenue, the respondents were not owners in the estate.
4. Now in the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel, the pre-emptor was claiming to be an owner in the estate when only he owned a house and it was in the said context that the observations were made by their Lordship. In a latter case of Ghulam Hussain Arshad and others v. Allah Ditta and others (1993 SCM R 1486), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that owner of agricultural land even if not assessed to land revenue is an owner in the estate. It is, therefore, held that the respondents are owners in estate and as such have a superior right of pre-emption.
5. So far as the matter of estoppel is concerned, the evidence failed to meet the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jam Pari v. Muhammad Abdullah (1992 SCM R 786). It comprises of statement of Raisat Ali D.W.1 and Noor Hassan D.W.2 stating that the respondents had promised not to file a pre-emption suit. I may note here D that Noor Hassan D.W.2 has simply stated that the respondents were present. This evidence has been sufficiently rebutted by the respondents. The civil revision is dismissed with no orders as to costs.