' This second appeal arises out of a suit of possession by pre-emption filed by the respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Sialkot. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants purchased some agricultural land in dispute from Mst. Haat Bibi vendor through a registered sale deed dated 18-2-1963 for a sale consideration of Rs, 5,000. Mst. Zainab Bibi and Mst. Sharifan Bibi plaintiff/respondents pre-empted the impugned sale transaction on the ground that they are the daughters of the vendor and would have inherited the suit land had it not been sold by way of institution of pre-emption suit on 19-2-1964. The present appellants resisted the suit and controverted the allegations contained in the plaint. The learned Senior Civil Judge after framing the issues, recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing the arguments of their respective counsel decreed the respondents' suit for possession through pre-emption on payment of Rs, 5,000 with no order as to costs vide judgment and decree dated 14-12-1964. The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26-6-1965 by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot. During the pendency of that appeal the appellants had applied for amendment of their written statement by raising a plea that Mst. Hayat Bibi, vendor was a limited owner and the vendees being the collaterals of her deceased husband would be Muslim Law heirs on her death. This amendment was refused by the learned Additional District Judge, for the reasons mentioned in his impugned judgment.
2. Against the dismissal of their appeal the appellants have come up in second appeal to this Court with this main decisive point urged by the learned counsel of the appellants as to whether the prayer for amendment of written statement made before the learned Additional District Judge, was erroneously rejected and the impugned transaction was not a sale but in fact an acceleration of succession by a Muslim female holding under Customary Law in favour of customary law heirs, i,e, vendee appellants, the collaterals of last male holders. While raising the above contention the learned counsel for the appellants frankly conceded that the respondents are the real daughters of Mst. Hayat Bibi vendor. On the basis of his above contention he argued that despite the fact the respondents are the real daughters of the vendor they did not enjoy a preferential right of pre- emption qua the present appellants, who are the collaterals of vendor's deceased husband.
3. 1 am constrained to accept the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as the instant dispute solely relates to a pre. Emption matter and no dispute regarding the status of Mst. Hayat Bibi or the inheritance of her deceased husband is before this Court. The appellants admittedly have purchased the suit land from Mst. Hayat Bibi admitting her to be the full owner of the suit land. They also did not raise any objectton regarding the validity of the impugned sale transaction of sale. The transaction contained in the registered documents Exh. P.
1./D. I. Executed by Mst. Hayat Bibi in favour of the present appellants bears all characteristics of a sale and there is nothing on the record to hold it otherwise as an acceleration of succession by a Muslim female under customary Law.
4. The concept of acceleration of succession is absolutely unknown to Muslim Law and the same cannot be deployed for the interpretation of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act of 1962. Accordingly to section 5 of the (Shariat) Application Act of 1962 all life estates held by Muslim females have been terminated since 31-12-1962 and after this termination the property has been math available for distribution among the Muslim Law heirs in accordance with the provisions laid down by Shariat Act No, 5 of 1962. In the instant case the appellants who now alleged that Mst. Hayat Bibi vendor was holding a limited interest, never made any effort to recover their respective shares after the termination of the alleged limited interest on 31-12-1962, but contrary to this, they preferred to enter into a transaction of sale with the vendor admitting her to be full owner of the suit land. At this stage they cannot be permitted to introduce a new case by way of amendment. The learned Additional District Judge rightly refused their application for amendment.
5. Under section 6 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, a right of pre-emption always exists in respect of sale of Agricultural land Subject to limitation contained in the Act. Where an absolute and unconditional sale is effected either orally or through registered instruments, pertaining to an agricultural land, the right of pre-emption immediately accrues to the pre-emptors under the law. In the instant case the respondents are the true daughters of the defendant vendor and as a consequence of the impugned sale, they are vested with an unrestricted right of pre-emption. The concurrent findings of the lower Courts are based upon cogent and substantial evidence. The appeal has no force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.