AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J, Through this civil revision, petitioner- defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1983 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff was accepted, in result of which, judgment and decree dated 24.7.1979 passed by learned Civil Judge, Khanpur, dismissing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff were set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts are leading to this civil revision are that Muhammad Hayat, predecessor of respondents, filed a suit on 10.12.1975 to pre-empt a sale of land through mutation No. 1295 attested on 13.12.1974 on the basis of 'Yakjaddi' joint owner.
3. Filing written statement the suit was contested. Out. Of the divergent pleadings of parties, learned Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective^, evidence.
Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the close of trial, vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.1979 suit was dismissed by learned Trial Court declaring that possession of land was transferred in April, 1974 therefore, institution of suit on 5.12.1975 after one year of delivery of possession was time-barred. The issue No. 6 with regard to superior right was decided in favour of plaintiff. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the first Appellate Court, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.1983 and in consequence whereof suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed. Learned first Appellate Court while recording findings on issue No. 1, as only this issue was under challenge before it, declared that as the property is part of joint khata, therefore, relying upon "PLD 1953 Baghdad-ul- Jadid 52 (Raja Maula Bakhsh Vi. Qadir Dad)" learned A.D.J. Observed that the suit land being part of joint khata, is not capable of physical possession, therefore, time runs from the date when mutation was sanctioned. While relying upon "PLD 1967 Lahore 336 (Anjuman Islamic, Muzaffargarh Vs. Ashiq Hussain and another)" and referring page 341 observed that in the judgment it has been held that even in a case of gift the only recital with regard to the transfer of possession is not sufficient.
Hence, this civil revision by the petitioner- defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant states that suit was definitely time-barred, as the possession was delivered to the vendee in April, 1975.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff states that the view taken by learned first Appellate Court is supported by the judgments of this Court, therefore, no exception can be taken. Further states that even the stamp to show transfer of possession is a fictitious paper; that only first page of that document has been produced and the second page has not been produced, therefore, this document is valueless and petitioner cannot take benefit from this document.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.
7. It is evident from the record that only one page of the document has been appended with this petition and even according to it (Ex.D- 1) copy of which has been produced before this Court, there are alleged three vendees, as such the petitioner cannot take benefit from this document. Further this document was in favour of three alleged vendees, whereas the impugned mutation was in favour of Ghulam Qadir only. As no other issue is under challenge before this Court, the only point of limitation is before this Court. Under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. 1913, undoubtedly the limitation is provided one year from the date of attestation of mutation, the said section for ready reference is reproduced herein:- "30. Limitation. - In any case not provided for by Article 10 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, the period of . Limitation in a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under the provisions of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in the Article 120 of the said Schedule, be one year-
(1) in the case of a sale of agricultural land or of village immovable property; from the date of the attestation (if any) of the sale by a Revenue Officer having jurisdiction in the register of mutations maintained under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; or from the date on which the vendee takes under the sale physical possession of any part of such land or property; whichever date shall be the earlier;
(2) in the case of a foreclosure of the right to redeem village immovable property or urban immovable property; from the date on which the title of the mortgage to the property becomes absolute;
(3) in the case of a sale of urban immovable property; from the date on which the vendee takes under the sale physical possession of any part of the property."
For taking the benefit of this section that possession was taken earlier to the attestation of mutation, defendant was bound to prove the delivery of physical possession under the sale. As admittedly the suit property was part of joint khata, therefore, there was no question of delivery of physical possession of land sold, which is suit land. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with law and suit was rightly decreed, wherefrom no exception can be taken. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. Has been made out by the petitioner.
Resultantly, this civil revision being devoid of any substance is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.