' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Vide Mutation No, 2196 attested on 12-11-2002, the respondent purchased the suit-land mentioned in the plaint for a consideration of Rs,30,000. On 10-2-2003 the petitioners filed a suit for possession of suit-land by pre-emption. They claimed to be co-sharers in the suit-land and also Shafi-e-Khalit as well as Shafi-e-Jar. Performance of Talbs were pleaded.
The respondent in his written statement took the plea that he is also a co-sharer. The other allegations were denied. Issues were framed and evidences of the parties were recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 23-11-2005. A learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhang allowed the first appeal, filed by the respondent and dismissed the suit on 18-11-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter of superior rights of pre-emption has been decided in oblivion of the provision of section 20 of the Preemption Act, 1991 while the misreading of the evidence is apparent on the 'face of record in the matter of talbs.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand find it difficult to answer the said first contention but vehemently urges that the copy of the notice was not introduced in the manner prescribed by law. Further contends that the fact that mutation was attested by a son of one of the petitioners as a witness is sufficient to hold that they had the knowledge of the sale. According to him, it is rather unnatural that 10 persons were present together when they came to know about the sale and made the first talb.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. As far as the matter of superior right is concerned, there is no dispute that both the parties are co-sharers. This being so, the inatter is to be governed by A section 20 of the Pre-emption Act, 1991 and the land has to be distributed amongst all the parties on per capita basis. As already held in the case of Muhammad Hayat v. Faiz Ali and another 2002 M LD 938. The' learned Additional District and Sessions Judge on the other hand, has without examining the said legal position has proceeded to non-suit the petitioners after holding both the parties to be co-sharer.
6. As far as the matter of Talb is concerned, in the plaint it has specifically been stated that the petitioners have acquired knowledge of sale on 10-1-2006 at 9-00 a.m. At their house. The pleadings are, therefore, 'adequate and sufficient. The informers namely Abdullah and Muhammad Hayat appeared as P.W.4 and P.W.5 and corroborated Matta Khan Petitioner P.W.3, when he stated that all the plaintiffs were present and they made the first talb immediately upon getting information from the said witness. I am not able to find any material discrepancies in the said statements. On the other hand, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has proceeded to assume that since one of the attesting witnesses of the mutation was the son of petitioner No,9.
It will be assumed that all the petitioners had the knowledge. To my mind, there is no material on record to support the inference drawn by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and similarly the observation that it is not possible that all the plaintiffs were present together when they acquired knowledge, is simply guess work.
7. As far as the contention regarding the notices are concerned, suffice it to say that where the document sought to be proved through secondary evidence is itself a notice than there is no requirement to follow the procedure in Article 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The posting of the notices under registered cover has been proved through postal receipt Exh.P.1. There is no allegation that the address of the respondent is not correct. Under the law, where a letter is found to be correctly addressed and duly posted, the D presumption is that it has reached its destination.
8. Having thus examined the record, I do find that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhang acted' with material irregularity 'in exercise of his jurisdiction while interfering with the judgment of the learned trial Court. The E Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, dated 18-11-2006 of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhang is set aside and the decree passed by the learned trial Court on 23-11-2005 is restored. In case the petitioners have not made a deposit in accordance with the decree of the learned trial Court they shall now make a deposit of Rs,27,273 in the learned trial court on or before 31-10-2007. Any amount already deposited towards 1/3 etc. Will of course be adjusted. In case the said amount is not so deposited on or before the said date, the suit of the petitioners shall stand dismissed with costs. At the moment, the parties are left to bear their own costs.