' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed judgment/decrees dated 24-2- 2004 and 28-10-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner, was partly decreed by slicing the suit-land into three parts.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against sale of land, effected vide Mutation No,3710/1 dated 30-11-2000, for a consideration of Rs,30,000 in favour of two vendees i.e, the respondents. Petitioner pleaded in his plaint that he on 27-3-2001 at 10-00 a.m. While passing through the suit-land along with Muhammad Anwar and Shaukat Ali, saw that the respondents were changing the direction of water which was passing through the same. On petitioner's query, respondents replied that they have purchased the suit- land from Iftikhar Ali Khan. Petitioner further averred that on gaining knowledge of sale he instantly exclaimed his intention to file a suit for possession through pre-emption and thus performed Talb- e-Muwathibat. According to him, he on the same evening visited the respondents and demanded transfer of suit-land in his name but on their refusal, on 28-3-2001 delivered them notice of Talb- eIshhad attested by two truthful witnesses and thereafter by filing suit performed Talb-e- Khusumat. Superior pre-emptive right was claimed being Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalt and Shall Jar.
3. Respondents being defendants in the suit contested the same by filing their written statement wherein they asserted that petitioner from the very beginning was aware of the sale and that he had no superior pre-emptive right qua them. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, after doing the needful, concluded that petitioner and both the vendees had equal pre-emptive rights and thus he divided the suit-land into three parts by giving 1/3rd to the petitioner and 1/3rd to each of the respondents, vide judgment/decree dated 24-2-2004.
4. Both the parties were not satisfied with the decision of the trial Court and consequently they filed their two distinct appeals before the learned Additional District Judge but both of them remained unsuccessful as the same were dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 28-10-2004. Petitioner has now filed instant revision petition for adjudgment of concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Besides the lawful reasons which weighed with the two Courts below in dividing suit-land in three parts and in decreeing the petitioner's suit to the extent of 1/3rd, argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that treating both the vendees as one part, suit-land should have been divided into two halves by awarding decree to the petitioner to the extent of 1/2, has not impressed me because the word vendee used in section 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 does not mean one set of parties in spite of the fact that each of them had equal right to that of the pre- emptor. Since both the vendees, independently of each other, were equally poised and were equipped with similar superior rights acknowledged by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, each of them had an independent right of sharing the suit-land as per section 20 of the Act (ibid).
6. Section 8 of the Act 1991 detailed the manner in which joint right of pre-emption was to be exercised, whereas its section 9 laid method of distribution of property inter pre-emptors. Latter mentioned provision acknowledged distribution of suit property amongst the preemptors in equal share. On the basis of this analogy, section 20 was enacted for distribution of property amongst the pre-emptor and vendees who fell within the same class of pre-emptors, with equal superior rights.
I and not ready to contribute to the view put forth one behalf of the petitioner for the simple reason that if five vendees with similar superior pre-emptive rights purchase jointly some property, they cannot be equated with one pre-emptor, as one group by giving all the five vendees, half of the suit property. This question earlier came under consideration before this Court in the case of Feroze Khan and 3 others v. Ahmad Yar (1992 M LD 1570) and in this case section 20 of the Act 1991 was considered and was found to be equivalent to the earlier provisions of section 17 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913 and relying on the case of Amir Hassan v. Rahim Bakhsh (19 All. 466) suit property was directed to be divided as it has been done by the Courts below. According to my humble estimation section 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 admits no other interpretation except that all the vendees with equal superior pre-emptive right qua the pre-emptor, will independently share the suit property, hence in the instance case vendees being two and pre-emptor being alone, the suit-land was correctly divided into three parts.
7. For the reasons noted above, both the Courts below correctly concluded the lis and committed no illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court, hence this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.