MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Vide Mutation No. 2220 attested on. 20-04-2002, the petitioner purchased the suit land mentioned in the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. On 10-05-2'002, the respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit land by pre-emption. According to him, the land had actually been sold for a sum of Rs. 20.000/-. He claimed to be "Shaft Shark", "Khalif and "Jaar". Performance of Taibs was pleaded in the plaint. The petitioners filed a written statement denying the said allegation and asserting that they have paid Rs. 60,000/- for the land. Issues were framed. Evidence of parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03-05-2006. I may note here that it was found by the learned Trial Court that neither the respondent has superior right of pre-emption nor he has performed "Talbs". First appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by the learned District Judge, Bhakar on 06-12-2006, who has decreed the suit subject to deposit of Rs. 60,000/-.
2. The learned counsel for petitioners contends that the respondent had failed to prove his superior right of pre-emption. Regarding "Talbs" his case is that the respondent did not state the exact date of knowledge in the course of his statement and has not otherwise proved the exact date of knowledge. As such first "Talb" could not be said to have been made properly. He has relied upon the case Atiq-ur-Rehman's (through his father) and another v. Muhammad Amin (PLD 2006 SC 309).
3. The learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment and decree of learned District Judge and relies on the case of Hayat Muhammad and others v. Mazhar Hussain (2006 S.C.M.R. 1410).
4. I have gone through the records with the assistance of learned counsel for parties, I have already preferred to in some details the pleadings on record. So far as the matter of superior right of pre- emption is concerned. According to Ex. P. 9, which is copy of Registrar Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1998-99, the respondent namely Muhammad Latif is recorded to be a co-owner in Khasra No. 9/1.
The suit land comprised of Khasra No. 1298/9/3. Ex. P.10 is copy of Aks Shajra for the year 1998-99. I find that both the said lands owned by the respondent and the one sold lie adjacent to each other.
The learned District Judge has therefore, correctly held that the respondent has superior right of pre-emption being "Shaft Jaar".
5. Coming to the next question of "Tao" it was stated in para. 4 of the plaint that the respondent came to know about the sale on 26-04-2002 at 04.00 p.m. Through Noor Muhammad and upon being so informed he made first "Talb" in presence of said informer and Rana Moaj Din. Respondent appeared as PW-2 on 25-09-2003 and stated that one year and five months ago he was sitting in his Bahtak alongwith Rana Moaj Din when at 04.00 PW-3 came there and told him about the sale, whereupon he made "Talb". The learned counsel states that-apart from the fact that he had not told the exact date, if one calculates the date it come to 25-05-2002 and not 26-04-2002. I find that in response to a question in cross-examination the petitioner stated that he came to know about the sale six days after the attestation of mutation. To my mind upon a reading of entire statement it is not at all difficult to ascertain the exact date on which the petitioner acquired knowledge, which is '26-04-2002, as stated in the plaint. Apart from this through curtsey of cross- examiner it has come in the statement of Noor Muhammad PW-3 and Rana Moaj Din PW-4, that the . Knowledge was acquired and "Talb" was made on 26-04- 2002. I have examined the said judgment in case of said Atteeq-ur-Rehman's (through his real father) and another being relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner. Their Lordships referred to the evidence in the said case in some detail in paras 8 and 9 of the report at page 314 and 315. It, appears that exact date was neither stated by the pre- emptor in the said case nor by the witnesses (Abdul Aziz, PW-2 and Sittar, PW-3) referred to in para. 9 of the said judgment. It was, thus, observed that the exact date of knowledge had not been proved. In the present case apart from the statement of respondent exact date of knowledge 26-04-2002 has come out in the statements of said PW-3 and PW-4 already referred to by me above.
6. Needless to state that it is apparent from the contents of the plaint stated above that in the present case the respondent has duly pleaded date, time and place of making of first "Talb" and further he has stated the names of the informer as well as the witnesses in the plaint itself. Having, thus, examined the records I find no ground being made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. The C.R. Is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The records of learned Courts below be return back immediately.