' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide C.R. No,302 of 2003 and C.R., No,488 of 2003 as common questions are involved and these proceed against a common judgment.
2. Vide Mutation No,341 attested on 29-9-1994 the petitioners purchased the suit-land measuring 4 Kanals for a consideration of Rs,50,000. On 23-1-1995 the respondent No,1 and, on 244-1995, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed suits for possession of the suit-land by pre-emption. They claimed to be co-sharers in the suit-land as also Shafi Khalit and Jar. Performance of Talbs was pleaded. Both the suits were consolidated. The written statements were filed by the petitioners denying the said allegations. Issues were framed. Proceedings were conducted in the suit filed by respondent No, 1.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Both the suits were decreed in equal shares in favour of respondent No,1 on the one hand and respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the other subject to deposit of Rs,50,000 vide judgment and decree dated 5-1-2002 of the learned trial Court. The petitioners filed two civil appeals which were heard together by a learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal. The learned Additional District Judge modified decree of the learned trial Court inasmuch as he proceeded to apportion the land in three shares upon a finding that the petitioners are also co- sharers in the suit-land. He decreed one share each in favour of the said two sets of the plaintiffs and allowed the petitioners to retain the remaining 1/3rd share. The term of deposit was modified accordingly. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 3-2-2003.
3. Syed Arshad Hussain Jafferi, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents in both the cases had failed to prove the performance of Talbs. He particularly points out that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 produced photo copies of the postal receipts which were not admissible in the matter of the service of the notices of Talb-i-Ishhad. He also questions the mode of apportionment of the suit-land with reference to the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Ahmad Khan and another 2005 YLR 197. Messrs Muhammad Zafar Khan Sial and Syed Asif Raza Gilani, Advocates, for the pre-emptors/respondents support the impugned judgments and decrees. In the matter of apportionment, they rely on the cases of Muhammad Hayat v. Faiz Ali and another 2002 M LD 938 and Feroze Khan and 3 others v. Ahmad Yar 1992 M LD 1570.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It will be noted that there is no dispute that all the pre-emptors as well- as the vendees were co-sharers it_ the suit-land prior to the sale in question. The respondent No,1 stated in the plaint that he came to know about the sale on 3-1-1995 and in the presence of witnesses he immediately made the first Talb. Thereafter, he contacted the petitioners along with the witnesses and made Talb-i-Ishhad and issued notices. Bashir Ahmad respondent No,1 appeared as P.W.1 to make a statement accordingly. Notices Exhs. P.1 and P.2 were also produced. Nusrat P.W.2 is the informer and also attesting witness of the said notices while Muhammad Rafiq P.W.3 stated that in his presence Nusrat informed the respondent No,1 and he made the first Talb and he had attested the notices Exhs. P.1 and P.2. P.W.4, Muhammad Akbar is the scribe of the notices. The postal receipts introduced in the statement of P.W.1 are Exhs.P.3 and P.4. The notices do refer to the first Talb and confirmed the same. Haq Nawaz petitioner appeared as D.W.3. He did state that a notice had not been issued. However, there is nothing on record that the notices were not properly addressed.
5. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 in their plaint stated that they came to know about the sale on 3-1- 1995 and made the first Talb and thereafter they contacted the petitioners along with witnesses to make the Talb-i-Ishhad and gave a notice. Sakina Bibi respondent No,3 appeared as P.W. 5 to reiterate the said contents of the plaint. She produced copy of notices Exhs P.10 and P.11. She also stated that she posted the said notices under register cover. P.W.6 is Khuda Bakhsh who stated that Nusrat informed the said ladies in his presence and they made the first Talb and the notices were issued which were attested by Khuda Bakhsh and the said Nusrat who again appeared as P.W.7 with the same statement. Muhammad Akbar is the Scribe of the said notices. Haq Nawaz appeared as D.W.3. There is no allegation that notices were not properly addressed. Now I find that the said respondents filed an application for permission to lead secondary evidence in the form of photo copies of the postal receipts with the plea that the original have been lost. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court with the consent of the petitioners and were tendered in evidence accordingly. Nothing, therefore, turns on the said contention of the learned counsel.
6. Now coming to the question of the matter of the apportionment of the land, in view of the admitted fact that all the preemptors and the vendees have an equal right of pre-emption, I deem it appropriate to reproduce hereunder section 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991:-- "20. Where the pre-emptor and vendee equally entitled. Where the pre-emptor and the vendee fall within the same class of preemptors and have equal right of pre-emption , the property shall be shared by them equally."
' It will be seen that the term 'preemptor' and the 'vendee' has been used in singular. Needless to state that under the applicable rules of interpretation contained in the Federal and the Provincial General Clauses Acts, singular includes plural and vice versa. Upon a plain reading of the said statutory provision where the pre-emptor (or pre-emptors) and the vendee (or vendees) fall within the same class of pre-emptor and have equal right of preemption, they shall share the property equally. In my humble opinion, the said provision of law does not contemplate two different classes rather only one class to which the pre-emptor as well as the vendees belong and that class is the one having equal right of pre-emption. In the present case, all the pre-emptors and the vendees belong to that very class of pre-emptors who are equipped with a right of preemption in equal terms i.e, that they are all co-sharers in the suit-land at the time of sale. Thus, having become members of the said class having equal right of preemption, i.e, class of co-sharers, they will share the property equally. This is how the similarly worded provisions of section 20 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre- emption Act, 1987, were interpreted in para.21 in the case of Sar Anjam v. Abdul Raziq 1999 SCM R 2167. To similar effect is the dictum in the case of Kala Khan v. Ayub Khan 1993 SCM R 543. Earlier dictum of this Court in the cases of Muhammad Hayat v. Faiz Ali and another 2002 M LD 938 and Feroze Khan and 3 others v. Ahmad Yar 1992 M LD 1570 is to the similar effect.
7. Now applying the said test to the present case, the two vendees and the three pre-emptors shall share the land in the following order:-- Petitioners = 2/5 Respondent No,1 = 1/5 Respondents Nos.2 and 3 = 2/5 ' The impugned decree is modified accordingly. Bashir Ahmad respondent No,1 shall accordingly deposit a sum of Rs,10,000 after adjustment of amount already deposited with the learned trial Court while the respondents Nos.2 and 3 (Mst. Bakhan and Mst. Sakina) shall deposit a sum of Rs,20,000 after adjusting the amounts already deposited with the learned trial Court on or before 31-7-2006. In case the said deposit is not so made on or before the said date by any of the preemptors, his or her suit shall stand dismissed with costs throughout. At the moment the parties are left to bear their own costs.