' KHALIL AHMED, J.-Petitioners filed a suit for declaration against respondents on 29-2-1996 that they are owners in possession of land mentioned in the head note of the suit on the basis of decree dated 23-5-1963 and that respondents have no concern with the property and that Mutation No, 428 dated 6-8-1995 be declared as void and illegal.
2. Suit was contested by respondents. They claimed themselves to be the owner in possession of the property. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- {{URDU TEXT}}
2. The petitioners produced their evidence and no evidence was produced by respondents. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-9-2005 dismissed the suit of the petitioners. Petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 12-7-2006. Hence the petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners states that the judgments of Courts below are against law and facts, that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioner, that petitioners are owners in possession of the property in question since 23-5-1963 from the time of pre-emption of the suit and that there is no evidence produced by respondents Nos.2 to 9, that the land was in the name of Wali s/o Nawab and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 6-8-1995. The petitioner filed suit on 7-3-1996 and as such was within limitation.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on 1992 SCM R 241 to contend that in pre-emption being of a particular nature, title of property would accrue to decree holder on payment in Court of purchase money together with costs would vest in plaintiff and he would be owner of land in question.
Learned counsel also relied on 1972 SCM R 322 to contend that petitioner became the owner of the property on payment of the purchase price and became vested with right, interest and title in the land from the date he was entitled to title in the land from that date he was entitled to get the mutation effected on the basis of the decree.
5. The learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently supported the orders of the learned trial Courts.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has drawn the attention of this Court at page No,75 of the petition to contend that the suit for pre-emption was decreed on 23-5-1963 on account of compromise having been effected between the parties subject to payment of Rs, 19000 which was later on changed by overwriting to 26-10-1963. Learned counsel also states that according to Article 122 of the Limitation Act a period of l2 years has been provided for enforcement of any right accruing from a decree. Admittedly the decree was passed in the year 1963 and the suit was filed on 23-11-2005 almost after 33 years of passing of the decree.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out as to whether after 33 years the suit was competent and to point out any irregularity in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The same are upheld and this petition is dismissed.