Vide mutation dated 14-5-1991 the suit-land was purchased by Muhammad Rafique respondent.
Late' Ghulam Nabbi (the predecessor-in-interest of appellants Nos. I to 6), ' Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Siddique appellants Nos.7 and 8 instituted the suit to pre-empt the said transaction of sale on the grounds urged in the plaint. The suit was contested. After due trial the same was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 29-2-1996. On appeal preferred by the respondent, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed accepting the appeal on 16-2-1998. This is second appeal by the pre-emptors.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the evidence has been misread by the learned Appellate Court inasmuch as. The appellants had duly fulfilled the Talbs and the Appellate Court acted illegally in reversing the findings of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has with reference to the notice Exh.P.2, contents of the plaint and evidence produced by the appellants/preemptors pointed out that the view taken by the Appellate Court for non-suiting the appellants is fully borne out by the evidence and is in accordance with law.
Reference has been made by him to Wilayat Khan v. Muhammad Sharif through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others 2004 CLC 240; Muhammad Abbas and 7 others v. Liaqat All and 9 others 2003 M LD 405; Muhammad Khan v. Muhannnad Arif 2003 CLC 706; Muhammad Ehsan v. Amanatullah 2000 SCM R 1447; Allah Dina v. Qurban Hussain 2003 M LD 446; Abdul Rehman and 5 others v. Muhammad Bakhsh 2002 CLC 1173; Haji Muhammad Salem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315; Muhammad Mal Khan v. Allah Yar Khan 2002 SCM R 235; Amin-ud-Din v. Mst. Zarina 2003 CLC 1775 and Muhammad Aslam and another v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi 2003 YLR 1496.
' The pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them has been perused and considered.
3. In paragraph-4 of the plaint the case set up by the appellants was that they had learnt of the mutation of sale dated 14-5-1991 on 30-5-1991 whereafter a notice was addressed to the respondent/.Vendee, which was witnessed by Muhammad Ashiq son of Ahmed Din and Muhammad Sharif alias Babu sem of Hussain Bakhsh. No assertion whatsoever was made in the plaint as to where, from whom and at what time they acquired information and knowledge of sale and whether any immediate demand was made by them. Notice dated 6-6-1991 Exh.P.2 bears the thumb-marks of Ghulam Nabbi deceased and Muhammad Sharif appellant/plaintiff. It does not bear the signature or thumb-mark of Muhammad Siddique the other co-appellant/plaintiff. It has thumb-marks of Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Sharif son of Hussain Bakhsh. Muhammad Ashiq was not produced for no apparent reason and testimony of Muhammad Sharif as P.W.3 is of no worth as he expressed his ignorance about the essential facts. Even the said notice does not make mention of essential particulars as to performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. The learned Appellate Court has while dealing with Issue No.3, examined and considered the evidence elaborately and came to the conclusion that:-- "Exh.P.2 is the notice, which was allegedly sent to the defendant. The same would show that Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Sharif gave thumb-impression thereupon, as marginal witnesses. It is worth mentioning here that Muhammad Ashiq has not been examined by the pre- emptors. The statement of Muhammad Sharif P.W.3 does not inspire any confidence. In the cross- examination he has admitted that he is not aware that who was owner of the suit-land and that except notice he is not aware about anything. It is crystal clear from the evidence of the respondents/ pre-emptors that they did not fulfil the requirement of Talb-eMuwathibat at all. It is jumping demand and is to be made in the same meeting and sitting without loss of time. There is nothing in the plaint to show the immediate place where Talb-e-Muwathibat was made by the pre-emptors."
The perusal of the evidence makes it abundantly clear that even the deposition of Muhammad Sharif P.W.7 (appellant/ plaintiff) is not confidence inspiring or convincing. Suffice it to state that performance of Talbs in accordance with law for decree in a suit for pre-emption is a pre-requisite.
The appellants in the instant case had not only failed to mention essential particulars in the notice, even the plaint was also silent thereabout. Their evidence also lacked consistency and coherence, which has rightly been disbelieved by the Appellate Court. The view thus, taken by the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality, which is consistent with the evidence on the record and law on the subject.
' As a result, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.