' This civil revision has arisen out of a pre-emption suit. It relates to certain land sold by the petitioners, Muhammad Khan and another. In favour of respondent No, 2, Badshah Khan, on 31st August 1973. Thereafter, on 29th November 1973, Badshah Khan sold the said land to respondent No, 3, Alam Khan. Subsequently, on 12th February 1974, Alam Khan sold the land to the petitioners. The suit was filed by the first respondent, Zar Mir Khan, to pre-empt the sale made by the petitioners (original vendors) on the ground that he was one of their collaterals and also a co-sharer in the khata in which the disputed land is situate. The suit, which was resisted by the defendants (petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3), was decreed by a Civil Judge of Mianwali. The petitioners then went in appeal before the District Judge, Mianwali, but without success. Hence this civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the land in dispute had been eventually re-sold to the petitioners and the pre-emptor (respondent No. 1) did not have a superior right of pre-emption qua the petitioners, the suit could not succeed. He cited .Raja Probhat Chandar Barua v. Emperor (1), Pandit Harbhagwan Das v. Sardar Partap Singh (2), Mst. Fateh Bibi v. Ahmad Khan and 6 others (3), Rehmat All and 10 others v. Ahmad Yar (4) and Ghaus Bakhsh and 4 others v. Wali Muhammad and 12 others (5), to support his arguments. In these precedent cases, it was held that if the vendee qua any sale passes on the land purchased by him to another person having a right of pre-emption equal or superior to the one who preempts the sale by means of a suit, the suit cannot succeed. None of these cases relates to a subsequent sale in favour of the vendor himself.
Therefore, the said authorities have no bearing on the real controversy involved in the present suit.
On the other hand, the authorities which are relevant to the point in issue are reported as Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Khan etc. (6), Imami v. Allah Diya and others (7), Sukha and others v. Arura Mal and another (8) d Pal Singh and another v. Jamun (9). In these cases it was ruled that a right of pre-emption cannot be defeated by means of re-sale of the property in favour of the vendor. I am, therefore, of the view that the ultimate transfer of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners, who are vendors qua the sale pre-empted in the instant suit, does not affect the claim of the pre- emptor (respondent No. 1). Since it is not disputed that the first respondent had a right of pre- emption against the original vendee (respondent No, 2) and the subsequent vendee (respondent No, 3), the two Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit.
3. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) AIR 1925 Lab. 413 (2) AIR 1938 Lah. 242
(3) PLD 1971 Lah. 171 (4) 1979 CLC 690
(5) 1979 CLC 880 (6) 38 P L R 224
(7) 40 I C 767 (8) P L R 1908 Lab. 165
(9) 49 I C 159 {{FOOT NOTE}}