' MAULVI ANWAR UL HAQ, J.---Vide registered sale-deed 11-12-1977 the respondents purchased the suit-land, mentioned in the plaint for consideration of Rs,92,000. On 5-12-1978 Muhammad Yousaf the deceased petitioner (now represented by L.Rs) filed a suit for possession of the suit-land by pre-emption. According to him the land had been sold for Rs,40,000 which amount was actually paid. He claimed to be a co-sharer and an owner of the estate. According to him respondents Nos.l and 2 are also owners of the estate but they have joined respondents Nos.3 to 6 with them who are not owners and as such will sink with them. The respondents filed a written statement. They insisted that they have paid Rs,92,000 for land; that all of them were owners of the estate. They pleaded that the name of defendant No,4 (now deceased respondent No,4 represented by L.Rs) is Allah Ditta and that his alias is Barkat Ali. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25-9-1981. The respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed on 18-3-1985, and the case was remanded back. Thereafter the suit was dismissed on 7-1-1989 on the ground that Talbs have not been pleaded. A first appeal was dismissed on 9-4-1989. However, C.R. No,205/90 was allowed by this Court on 5-5-2000 and the case was remanded back. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 18-10-2000. A first appeal filed by the respondents has been allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, on 22-12-2001, who has dismissed the suit of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that evidence on record has been misread and the learned Additional District Judge has preferred oral evidence as against the documentary evidence inasmuch as in revenue documents the name of respondent No,4 i.e, Barkat Ali is not mentioned rather Allah Ditta is mentioned. He has also questioned finding of the learned trial Court that the right of pre-emption did not survive Muhammad Yousaf deceased with reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Sadiq 2000 M LD 588.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge with reference to the evidence on record. He states that the said judgment of this Court was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court in the same case reported as 2007 SCM R 1478.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It will be noted that although in the plaint it was stated that the defendants Nos.3 to 6 are not the owners of the estate by the controversy presently only is regarding Barkat Ali respondent No,4 even otherwise examination of the Revenue Record does show that all the other defendants are recorded as owners of Mouza Kot Dewan Tehsil and District Jhang. Exh.P1 is the copy of the sale-deed whereby land had been purchased by the respondents. Inter alia, it has been sold to Mukhtar Hussain son of Saleh Muhammad and Barkat Ali son of Saleh Muhammad. It appears that Mukhtar Hussain and Allah Ditta sons of Saleh Muhammad along with others purchased land from Muhammad Ramzan vide Mutation No, 1195 attested on 5-4-1974 and the mutation was incorporated in the Revenue Record for the year 1976-77 with the same name and the same name continued thereafter.
4. Ghulam Shabbir, appeared as DW-1. He is a landowner in the estate (Khewat dar). Hestated that defendant No,4 is also known as Allah Dina, The witness is also Lambardar. He further states that defendant No,4 present in Court is the son of Saleh Muhammad and his caste is Tajjar. According to him there is no other Allah Ditta son of Barkat Ali and that he recovers the Government dues from defendant No,4 Barkat Ali. In the course of his cross-examination he states that Saleh Muhammad had three sons Allah Ditta alias B Barkat Ali, Mukhtar Hussain and Said. The petitioners have produced a voter list Exh.P5 which records Barkat Ali son of Saleh Muhammad and Serial No,627, Mokha son of Saleh Muhammad son of Sultan and said son of Saleh Muhammad son of Sultan, in between are sons of said persons. DW-2 Pehlwan is a member of union council and he has also stated in accord with the said DW-1. DW-3 is Pehlwan son of Mian Abdul while DW-4 is Barkat Ali defendant No,4 himself.
5. As against the said evidence Muhammad Bashir one of the L.Rs, of the plaintiff appeared as P.W.1.
He has stated that except Barkat Ali all other defendants are owners of the estate. In his cross examination at first he expressed ignorance as to the name of father of Barkat Ali and Mukhtar Hussain but later he states that he had heard that Barkat Ali and Mukhtar Hussain are sons of Saleh Muhammad and that they are brothers. He was then given a straight suggestion. He expressed ignorance that Barkat Ali's name in fact is Allah Ditta and his alias is Barkat Ali.
6. Having, thus, examined the said evidence on record, I do not find any misreading of the evidence by A.D.J. While recording findings that Barkat Ali and Anal Ditta are the same persons.
7. The learned trial Court, on the other hand, has dealt with the matter (issue No,5) in para-9 of its judgment and I find that not a single piece of evidence was discussed or even referred to while answering the issue against the defendants.
8. So far as the said other contention of the learned counsel is concerned, I do find that the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal against the judgment reported as 2000 M LD 588 Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Sadiq in the case reported as 2007 SCM R 1478 and their lordships concluded that survival of right of pre-emption in the case of death of pre-emptor before the decree has a E reference to an independent right vesting in the L.Rs of the deceased pre-emptor. In the present case although the suit was initially decreed on 25-9-1981 but Muhammad Yousaf died on 23-3-1981. In the absence of any plea that the petitioners/ L.Rs had other land apart from one inherited by them from their father the said dictum is squarely attracted.
No other point has been raised. Civil revision is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.