' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner/defendant impugns the appellate judgment and decree dated 7-2-2002 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 8-7-2001 was set aside and a on suit filed by the respondents seeking possession of the suit property through preemption, was decreed.
2. The only issue argued before me relates to Talbs. The appellate Court has held that the respondents have fulfilled the requirements of Talbs. The facts of the case are simple. The sale in question was made through Mutation No,1219 sanctioned on 31-1-1995. The date of knowledge, alleged in the plaint, was 20-5-1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case titled Muhammad Ramzan v. Lal Khan 1995 SCM R 1510 to point out that in the absence of any averment in the plaint or in the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses that the requirements of section 31 of the Pre-emption Act had not been fulfilled, it is to be presumed that such requirements including the requirement that the notice envisaged under subsection (1) of section 31 of the Pre-emption Act was sufficiently given and displayed as required by subsection (2), had been complied with. The cited precedent enunciates the principle that based on such presumption the preemptor is deemed to have due knowledge of the attestation of the mutation of sale within two weeks from the notice referred to in section 31.
3. Following the above precedent, it is clear that Muhammad Chiragh (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents), who was the original plaintiff/pre-emptor, is deemed to have had knowledge of the sale latest by 14-2-2005. In this view of the matter, the Talb-i- Muwathibat, allegedly made on 20-5-1995, was not sufficient for the purpose of section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to controvert these submissions made on behalf of the petitioner or to cite any judgment to the contrary.
4. In the light of the above discussion, I find the impugned appellate decree to be unsustainable at law. The same is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 3-7-2001 dismissing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, is upheld.