' I propose to dispose of four Civil Revisions Nos. 114, 115, 116, and 117/1 of 1984/BWP through single judgment because the appeals are not only between the same parties but also involve identical question of law and facts. In the year 1972-73 Mst. Bakhtan petitioner purchased land from Bashir Ahmad respondent No.2 on different dates. Four mutations of sale were attested accordingly. On this Haji Allah Wasaya respondent No.1 filed four separate suits for possession by pre-emption against Mst. Bakhtan petitioner on the basis of his superior rights as of the vendor and co-sharer in Khata. The suits were resisted whereon several issues were framed. The parties produced their evidence. The trial Court decreed all the four suits. Feeling aggrieved Mst. Bakhtan filed four appeals which were dismissed on 1-2-1984, hence these four revisions.
2. Before me the findings of the learned Gourts below on issue of superior right of the respondent have been challenged. The issue is as under:- "Whether the plaintiff has preferential right of pre-emption against the vendee/defendant qua the suit land? O.P.P.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Haji Allah Wasaya respondent has no superior right of pre-emption, that despite its finding that the petitioner is nearer to the vendor, the learned Appellate Court without legal justification has confirmed the finding of the trial Court on this issue that Mst. Bakhtan being sister of the grandfather of Bashir Ahmad, her right of pre-emption if not superior, is at least equal to that of Haji Allah Wasaya who is the son of the cousin of the grandfather of Bashir Ahmad vendor. Conversely the learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the judgment of the learned Courts below.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that admittedly Haji Allah Wasaya respondent No.1 is a son of the 'cousin of the grandfather of Bashir Ahmad vendor and as such he is a residuary. As against this Mat. Bakhtan being the sister of the grandfather of Bashir Ahmad vendor comes within the category,, of distant kindred. The relevant provisions of law may be reproduced conveniently:-- "15. Person in Whom right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property. Subject to the provisions of section 14, the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest:-
(a) Where the sale is by a sole owner or occupancy tenant or, in the case of land or property jointly owned or held, is by all the co-sharers jointly, in the persons in order of succession, who but for such sale would be entitled, on the death of the vendor or vendors to inherit the land or property sold;
(b) where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property, and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly:- Firstly, in the lineal descendants , of the vendor in order of succession; secondly, in the co-sharers, if any, who are agnates, in order of succession; thirdly, in the persons, not included under firstly or secondly above, in order of succession who but for such sale would be entitled, on the death of the vendor, to inherit the land or property sold: ' Provided that in case where the sale is by a Muslim, the firstly and secondly shall be inapplicable, and the thirdly shall read as follows: - ' Thirdly, in the persons in order of succession, who but for such sale would be entitled, on the death of the vendor to inherit the land or property sold,"
' In para. 67 of Muhammadan Law, it has been stated that if there be no sharer or residuary inheritance is divided amongst the distant kindreds. Under the Rules of Exclusion the distant kindreds stand excluded in the presence of residuaries. It is thus very much obvious that in order of succession, the residuary comes first and if there be no residuary then the distant kindreds will inherit. So the right of pre-emption of Haji Allah Wasaya repondent No.1 is superior to that of Mst.
Bakhtan petitioner. For all these reasons I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the finding of the Courts below on this issue.
5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the four revisions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.