JUDGMENT NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- This judgment will dispose of two connected Civil Revisions No. 2009 of 2003 and 2010 of 200S, which are between, the same parties and common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. In C.R. No. 2009 of 2003, the petitioner institute a civil suit for possession through exercise of her right of pre-emption in respect of the sale of land measuring 14-kanals, 17-marlas, situated in Haripur, Tehsil Wazirabad, which took place through Mutation No. 573, dated 29.5.1999 for a sale price of Rs. 1,84,000/- in favour of the respondent Muhammad Boota. The petitioner instituted this suit on 23.9.1999 alleging that she came to know of the sale in question on 21.8.1999 at 3:00 p.m. In her house through the informer Muhammad Arshad, which facts are stated in para- 3 of the plaint.
Claiming the right of pre-emption on the basis of co-ownership of land in contiguity and also being a co- sharer enjoying common passage and water flow, the suit for pre-emption was instituted by the petitioner.
In C.R. No. 2010 of 2003, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for possession through exercise of her right of preemption in respect of the sale of land measuring 14-kanals, 16-marlas, situated in Haripur, Tehsil Wazirabad, which took place through Mutation No. 574, dated 29.5.1999 for a sale price of Rs. 1,84,000/- in favour of the respondent Muhammad Boota. The petitioner instituted this suit on 23.9.1999 alleging that she came to know of the sale in question on 21.8.1999 at 3:00 p.m. In her house through the informer Muhammad Arshad, which facts are stated in para- 3 of the plaint.
Claiming the right of pre-emption on the basis of ownership of land, in contiguity and also being, a co- sharer enjoying common passage and water flow, the suit for pre-emption was instituted by the petitioner.
4. Both the suits were, contested by the respondent Muhammad Boota. The making of Talbs by the Petitioner/plaintiff were denied by the respondent, It was also contended that Muhammad Boota was a minor at the time of purchase and the Petitioner/plaintiff failed to serve the notice of Talb-e- Ishhad upon the respondent/defendant through his guardian ad-liters, which defect was fatal to the maintainability of the suit.
5. In both the suits, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:- ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff is estopped by her act, and conduct to file this suit? OPD
2. Whether this suit has been filed for benefit of Bahadur Ali? OPD
3. Whether defendant is minor, if so, its effect? OPD
4. Whether this suit has been incorrectly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction, if, so, what is correct valuation? OPD
5. Whether this suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD
7. Whether plaintiff complied with requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad? OPP
8. Whether plaintiff has superior right of preemption on disputed land? OPP
9. Relief.
6. The parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge vide two separate judgments and decrees dated 28.1.2003 decreed the suit in favour of the plantiff petitioner.
7. The respondent preferred, two separate appeals, which came up for hearing before a learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, who accepted the appeals through separate judgments and decrees dated 20.8.2003 as a result whereof, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner were set aside and, both the suits instituted by her were ordered to be dismissed. Hence, these two Civil-revisions.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner;that the learned Additional. District Judge while recording its finding on Issue No. 7 with .Regard to making of Talbs in the instant suit has misread the evidence regarding, the minority of the present respondent Mohammad Boota.
The learned counsel referred to document (Ex. P.2), which are the certified copies of Mutations Nos.'
573 and 574, dated 29,5.1999 in each Case through which the respondent Muhammad Boota purchased the subject lands. The learned counsel argued that in these documents, there is no reference to the effect that Muhammad Boota was minor at that time, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has recorded, incorrect findings by misreading the documents (Ex. P.2) to the effect that Muhammad Boota was a minor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the document (Ex. P.3), which was produced, was not admissible in evidence and it is not proved as to who. Has prepared the said certified copy. However, the learned counsel has admitted that this document (Ex. P.3) was produced by the petitioner herself in the evidence. The learned counsel argues that the plaintiff/petitioner had asked her brother to obtain certified copies of the mutations on 23.5.1999 and that the said brother did the needful and supplied the same to the petitioner, It is argued that the documents (Ex:P.3) were not obtained by the brother of the petitioner and were not supplied to her by him. It is however an admitted fact that the said brother of the petitioner was not produced by her In the evidence in support of her contention. The learned counsel submits that in her evidence, she has stated that it is her brother, who has obtained certified copies from the revenue record but learned counsel argued that the document (Ex. P.3) is not at all admissible in evidence. The learned counsel elaborates that the note of the Patwari, which is incorporated in the document (Ex. P.3) is not part of the record-of-rights. In this context, the learned counsel referred to Section 39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 regd with Rule 30 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 By returning to the said provisions- of law, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this document (Ex,P.3), which contains the noting of the Patwari, cannot be treated as record-of:rights and was V not admissible; The learned counsel finally concludes that the learned Additional District Judge has set s aside the findings of the learned Trial Court on the basis of this document (Ex. P.3), which is an illegality committed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 36 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 that the method of inspecting the Revenue Record in possession of a Patwari has -been prescribed there and the instant document (Ex. P.3) is violative of those provisions. The learned counsel next contended that the petitioner appeared in her on evidence as (PW.) admitted that the vendor Mst. Najeeba was her real sister and she met the petitioner in the months of May, June and July, but the learned Additional District Judge formed his opinion in conjectural manner to draw an inference that the meeting of the said sister with the petitioner in .
The months mentioned above would have naturally resulted into the knowledge of the petitioner of the transaction in question.
9. Conversely,. The learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has recorded finding on Issue No. 7, keeping in view the contents of document (Ex. P.3), which has been produced by the petitioner herself, wherein the date of obtaining certified copy has been mentioned, as, 2.7.1999, therefore, she cannot question the correctness Of the said document nor can she raise the points about its admissibility. The learned counsel further argued that the learned Additional District Judge has passed the judgments and decrees in accordance with law on the basis of evidence produced by the parties.
10. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
11. The learned Additional District Judge while recording his finding on Issue No. 7 has referred to the document (Ex. P.3), which is a certified copy of the record-of- rights and which has been produced by the petitioner hereselfin which it is noted down that the certified copy was obtained on 2.7.1999 by and on behalf of the petitioner and the same was produced. The learned Additional District Judge has made use of the said document only for the purpose of acquiring the knowledge by the petitioner of the mutations in question and held that she made a false claim in the plaint of coming to know of the mutations on 21.8.1999 resulting making of Talb-e-Muwathibat on the said date. The petitioner having herself produced the said document cannot be allowed to argue that this document was inadmissible and has no evidentiary value.
12. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge are in accordance with law and are based upon evidence. No misreading is found or pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which are quite in accordance with law and do not call for interference by this Court. Both the instant civil revision petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs.