SHAFT-UR-REHMAN, J.-By two separate petitions the same vendees seek leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court dated 14-6-1977 whereby the appellate judgments were affirmed and both the appeals were dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioners purchased land in village Sial, Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali. Two separate Mutations (Nos. 3587 and 3588) were attested on 11-10-1973. Muhammad Nawaz filed two separate pre-emption suits against these sales claiming a superior right of pre-emption. The contest in both the suits took place on identical issues, the one relevant at this stage is Issue No. 4 "whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of pre-emption". The relationship of the respondent with the vendor was not disputed but the petitioners claimed a superior right on the sole ground that they happened to be at the relevant time the tenants of the land in question. The trial Court upheld that plea on the ground that oral evidence led by the petitioners was more convincing than the oral evidence of the respondents. The trial Judge observed that he was not inclined to believe the only and solitary statement of the plaintiff who is the witness of his own cause, on this point, without any support and corroboration from any other witness." The first appellate Court reversed this finding mainly on the ground that the Khasra Girdawari showed that the vendees had come in possession of the land after the sale in Rabi 1974. The First Appellate Court held that, "it is not at all proved that the defendants-respondents were tenants of the suit land at the time of sale. Rather the documentary evidence contradicts the position. Oral evidence on this point is not worth consideration and is concocted one. The same should not have been believed". The learned Judge in the High Court affirmed the finding of the First Appellate Court.
3. There are two arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, it is submitted that there was both oral and documentary evidence to support the claim of the petitioners that they were in possession of the property at the time of the sale and hence could successfully match their pre-emptive right with the plaintiff. The trial Court, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners had believed the oral evidence and it should not have been lightly .Interfered with and disbelieved. The other ground which was for the first tune taken up before the Additional District Judge, then in the High Court and now has been repeated before us is that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of amendment in para. 25 of M. L. R. 115 by Ordinance XX of 1976.
4. So far as the fact of tenancy is concerned, it is found in the Khasra Girdawari on the basis of an entry made at the time of Rabi 1974 crop inspection a few months after the sale had in fact taken place. The attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was drawn to a decision of this Court in Ghulam Hassan and others v. Sarfraz Khan and others (PLD 1956 SC (Pale.) 309where the dispute was whether the donor had parted with the possession of the land which formed the subject of gift and the reliance was on such an entry in the Khasra Girdawari and the effort was to relate it back to the time of sowing of the crop of which the entry in the Khasra Girdawari was made. It w held that the entries in the revenue record are presumed to relate to the state of affairs prevailing at the date on which they are prepared. The entry of the Khasra Girdawari in the case of the petitioners cannot be of much help them. As regards oral evidence, even the finding of the trial Court was that it was directed at showing that the vendees had come into possession a yeabefore the institution of the suit. Not only the entries of the Khasr Girdawari did not support such an assertion, the sale having taksn place b_ mutations attested on 11-10-1973 as the suit was instituted on 9-10-1974 suchevidence could not be sufficient to prove the possession at the time of o before the sale. The First Appellate Court and the High Court have both rejected it and there appears to be good ground for such rejection.
5. As regards the jurisdiction of the civil Court, it is based on an amendment made in para. 25 of the Land Reforms Ordinance by Ordi--nance XX of 1976 enforced on 19-5-1976. It provided as follows ---All suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption in respect of land compris--ed in a tenancy shall be exclusively entertained, heard and decided by the Collector within whose jurisdiction the land in respect of which the right of preemption has been claimed is situated and all such suits which may be pending in any Court immediately before the commence--ment of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, shall on such commencement stand transferred to the Collector concerned." The High Court has dealt with this ground and held that it was not available to the petitioners who claim to be tenants but were not plaintiffs. This B appears to be the correct view of the provision, which deals with the rights of the tenants and provided the forum for enforcing such rights where such proceedings were instituted by the tenants.
6. There is no merit in any of the grounds taken up and both the petitioners are dismissed.