YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J. The instant Revision questions the concurrent findings recorded against the Applicant in terms of the Judgment of the 1st Civil Judge Pano Aqil dated 21.04.2009 in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2008 (the "Underlying Suit"), as upheld by the Additional District Judge (Hudood) Sukkur in Appeal No. 96/2011 (the "Subject Appeal") vide Judgment dated 18.01.2019.
2. The facts and circumstances underpinning the dispute inter se the parties are duly encapsulated in depth in the Appellate Judgment and it would serve no useful purpose to burden the record by reiterating the same in detail. Suffice to say that the Underlying Suit was brought by the Applicant as against the Respondent in exercise of a professed right of pre-emption, which proceeded through evidence and eventually came to be dismissed at the stage of final arguments, principally on the point of maintainability, being barred by limitation. Thereafter, Appeal No. Nil of 2009 was apparently filed by the Applicant was dismissed in limini. Being aggrieved the Applicant filed Civil Revision. No. S-87 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 21.10.2011; whereby the matter was remanded to the extent of the appellate forum for determination afresh after framing paints for determination and considering the evidence on record, and appears to have proceeded thereafter in the shape of the Subject Appeal, culminating in its dismissal in terms of the Judgment dated 18.01.2012, as impugned herein.
3. The Applicant, who appeared in person, and learned counsel for the Respondent both Ought final disposal of the Revision at the katcha peshi stage and submitted written arguments in that regard.
4. From a perusal of such arguments, viewed in light of the aforementioned Judgments dated 21.04.2009 and 18.01.2012 in the Underlying Suit and Subject Appeal respectively, when read in juxtaposition with the pleadings and evidence on record, what comes to the fore is that the Applicant claimed a right of pre-emption under Mahomedan Law on the ground that he was co- sharer to the extent of a 5 paisa share out of undivided parcel of land bearing S.No.859, admeasuring 3.04 Acres, and that one Abdul Karim, from whom he had purchased such interest, had then subsequently fraudulently managed to transfer a 20 paisa share of such undivided property in favour of the Respondent vendee. Whilst it has been pleaded in the plaint filed in the Underlying Suit that the sale took place through a registered deed No. 1878 dated 29.09.2006, it has nonetheless also been contended that such sale took place without notice to the co-sharers. On this basis it has been contended that the Applicant had no knowledge of the sale and only came to know thereof on 31.07.2008, when he went to the land and came across the Respondent, and upon being informed by him of the sale, he immediately expressed his Haq-e-Shufaa and made Talb-e- Mowasibat in presence of witnesses and also fulfilled the formality of Talb-e-Ishhad. This is the stance visible from the Judgments of the Court below and, indeed, is the very contention of the Applicant as per his written arguments. The Applicant thus argued that the Underlying Suit was rightly filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that the Courts below had wrongly held the same to be barred by limitation without appreciating the evidence.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent referred to Article 10 of the Limitation Act, which provides a limitation period of one year to enforce a right of pre-emption, whether the right is founded on law or general usage or on special contract, and under which time begins to run when the purchaser takes, under the sale sought to be impeached, physical possession of the whole of the property sold, or where the subject of the sale does not admit of physical possession, when the instrument of sale is registered. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that while dismissing the Underling Suit and the Subject Appeal, the Courts below had rightly considered the question of limitation and adjudged the claim to be barred by limitation in terms of Article 10.
6. From a plain reading of the Judgment dated 18.01.2012, it is apparent that various points for determination were framed by the learned ADJ, including a point as to maintainability on the ground of limitation, after which the learned ADJ arrived at his determination on consideration of the case set up by the Applicant in the plaint filed in the Underlying Suit and the evidence on record. On this basis, the learned ADJ observed with reference to various excerpts from the evidence that serious doubt was thereby cast on the veracity of the Applicants contention as to lack of knowledge of the sale in favour of the Respondent prior to 31.07.2008, in as much as the Appellant admitted to making regular visits to the land on a weekly basis and that the entire parcel of land was admittedly under cultivation of a common hari, who was a caste fellow of the Applicant, but had not been produced by him as a witness. Even otherwise, it is apparent that as per Article 10 of the limitation Act, the period of limitation in respect of a sale transaction begins to run from the date of possession in those cases where the subject property as a whole admits to possession, or, where the property does not so admit; from the date when the instrument of sale is registered.
7. In the matter at hand, the Applicant has himself pleaded and further stated in his deposition that the Respondent acquired the share in question vide registered deed No. 1878 dated 29.09.2006, and that the Form-VII entry was made thereafter on 18.11.2006. As the property acquired was admittedly an un-divided share in a joint holding, the condition of physical possession would not be attracted and the one year period of limitation would thus even otherwise be reckoned with reference to the date of the registered instrument. As such, the Suit having been filed on 01.08.2008, several months after the lapse of the one year period to be reckoned with reference to the date of registration of deed No. 1878 dated 29.09.2006, is evidently barred under Article 10 of the Limitation Act. Reference is made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Khushi Muhammad v. Abdul Shakoor 1987 SCMR 1473, as well as judgments of the Lahore High Court and erstwhile High Court of Baghdad-ul-Jadid in the cases reported as Mst. Zubeda Begum v. Allah Ditta 1986 CLC 855 and Gullan v. Muhammad Ramzan and others PLD 1962 (W.P.) (sic)
Baghdad-ul-Jadid respectively.
8. In light of the foregoing, I am of the view that the concurrent findings on the point of limitation in terms of the Judgments dated 21.04.2009 and 18.01.2012 in the Underlying, Suit and Subject Appeal respectively have been correctly recorded and no illegality or material irregularity is apparent in that regard. As such, no interference is warranted in revision through the present proceedings, and the instant Application is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.