' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--This judgment shall decide Civil Revisions Nos.1837, 1838, 1839 and 1840 of 2004 as common questions are involved.
2. The relevant facts of these cases are as follows:--
(i) In the matter of C.R.No,1837/04, the respondents purchased 1/4 share of land measuring 30 Kanals, 18 Marlas mentioned in para.1 of the plaint vide Mutation No,1578 attested on 28-6-1997 for a the issue of talbs and dismissed all the consideration of Rs,1,87,500. Suits.
(ii) In the matter of C.R. No,1838/04, the respondents purchased land measuring 7 Kanals, 15 Marlas mentioned in para. 1 of the plaint vide Mutation No,1576 attested on 28-6-1997 for a consideration of Rs,1,87,500.
(iii) In the matter of C.R. No,1839/04, the respondents purchased 1/4 share of land measuring 30 Kanals 18 Marlas mentioned in para-1 of the plaint vide Mutation No, 1577 attested on 28-6-1997 for a consideration of Rs,1,87,500.
(iv) In the matter of C.R.No,1840/04, the respondents purchased 1/4 share of land measuring 30 Kanals, 18 Marlas mentioned in para.1 of the plaint for a consideration of Rs,1,87,500 vide Mutation No,1579 attested on 28-6-1997.
3. On 10-9-1997 the petitioners filed suits for possession of the lands so sold by pre-emption. They claimed to be Shafi Khalit and Jar. Performance of talbs was pleaded. The suits were contested by the respondents by filing written statement. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgments and decrees dated 29-5-2002 the suits were partly decreed in respect of land comprising Rectangle No,59 on payment of Rs,81,169 in each case, also'Rs,15,777 in each case as incidental charges. The respondent in these cases filed first appeals which were allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, on 19-5-2004. I may note here that the learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings in all these cases on the issue of talbs and dismissed all the suites.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that evidence on record has been misread inasmuch as the land was being cultivated by a tenant whereas the learned Additional District Judge has non-suited the petitioners in these cases on the ground that the respondents had taken over possession on the day of sale. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge.
5. I have gone through the copies of the records, appended with all these cases, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. In the relevant paras of these plaints, it was stated by the petitioners that on 9-7-1997 at 7-00 a.m. While they were passing through a street of the village Muhammad Inayat met them and informed that Salehon has sold the land to the respective respondents/ vendees. They made the first talb and at that time Umar Hayat and Ali Muhammad were also present. Shabbir Ahmad petitioner No,1 appeared as P.W.1 and made a statement accordingly. However, he stated that at that A time Ali Ahmad son of Fateh Muhammad and Mushtaq son of Ghulam Rasool were present. In the course of cross-examination, he stated that Ali Ahmad used to cultivate the land and was the tenant of the vendor and attorns to the vendees. In further cross-examination he was given a straight suggestion and he admitted that right from the day the land was sold Ali Ahmad is attorning to the vendees. Muhammad Inayat appeared as P.W.2 and in his cross-examination admitted as correct that the vendees are in possession and they are so in possession ever-since the sale and that the entire village is aware of the sale. Ali Ahmad son of Fateh Muhammad appeared as P.W.3. I may note here that in his examination-in-chief he stated that upon receiving the information from Inayat only Bashir Ahmad stated that he will file a preemption suit. But that as it may, in his cross-examination he admitted without any demur that right from the day of sale the A vendees are in possession and further admitted that right on the day of sale the entire village came to know about the sale. It is true that Haji Nazar Muhammad DW.1 in all these cases did state that Ali Ahmad was the tenant and is continuing as such. However, he insisted that they are in possession.
6. Having, thus, examined the records, nothing turns on the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners because the petitioners themselves stated that the tenant has started attorning to the vendees right from the day of the sale and his witnesses stated accordingly. All these civil revisions are accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.