' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.~ The petitioner purchased the suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 22-2-1978 for a consideration of Rs, 16,000. On 21-2-1979 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner for possession of the suit land by pre-emption. According to him, the land had been sold for Rs, 12,000, He claimed to be a brother of the vendor. The petitioner put in appearance. He insisted that they have paid Rs, 16,000 for the land . As to the fact that the respondent is brother of the vendor, ignorance was expressed. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded.
The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 16-7-1985. A first appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 3-11-1985 who decreed the suit subject to deposit of Rs, 16,000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that evidence on record has been misread by the learned first appellate Court while reversing the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue No,l.
According to him, it stood proved that the suit land was comprised in the non occupancy tenancy of the petitioners at the time of sale. No one has turned up for the respondent.
3. I have gone through the records of the learned trial Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the respective pleadings of the parties. It will be seen that whereas ignorance was expressed in response to the claim of the respondent that he is the brother of the vendor, no plea was taken that the land is comprised in the non-occupancy tenancy of the petitioners within the meaning of para.25 of MLR 115 so as to vest them with the first right of pre-emption under the said MLR. In the course of evidence, the fact that vendor was brother of, respondent was admitted by Bashir Ahmad petitioner No, 3 who appeared as D. W. 1 on 30-4-1984.
4. On 2-10-1984 Shakar Din respondent appeared as P.W.-1 to state that he is the brother of the vendor and that the land was sold for Rs,12,000. It was in his cross-examination that it was suggested to him and he denied that the respondent used to cultivate the land before the sale.
Thereafter on 30-4-1984 Bashir Ahmad appeared as DW-1 and he stated that before purchasing the land the petitioner used to cultivate the land as tenants. By way of additional evidence, the respondent got produced Khasra Girdawari Ex.P.3 from Muhammad Alam, Patwari. This evidence was led to rebut copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.D.2 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on 14-1-1985.
5. I have examined both the said documents. According to Ex.D.2 on 20.3.1978 the petitioners were recorded as tenant at will in the suit land for Rabi,1978. According to Exh.P.3. On the same date the petitioners were recorded to be tenants at will because of sale.
6. As noted by me above,Ex.P.3 was got ' produced alongwith the records i.e, Register Khasra Girdawari through the Patwari. The learned Additional District Judge has therefore, very correctly doubted the entry in Exh. D.2. Apart from the fact that the said entry is apparently doubtful. It was made on 20-3-1978. The sale took place in favour of the respondent by a registered document on 22-2-1978. It is by now well settled that entry in the Khasra Girdawari would be relevant only with reference to the date on which it is recorded. It can neither be stretched back nor forward. The learned Additional District Judge has very correctly relied upon the case of Riaz Ahmad v.Um-e- Salma (1985 SCM R 1740).
7. Having, thus examined the records, I do not find any grounds being made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court within the meaning of section 115 C.P.C. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
8. The records of the learned lower Courts be remitted back immediately.