' This petition seeking revision of the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Chiniot, dated the 11th June, 1985, decreeing the respondent's suit for possession by pre-emption of 30 Kanals 10 Marlas of the land in dispute situate in,,the area of village Thatta Rasaloo, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, on payment of Rs,45,000 and of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, dated the 9th March, 1986, endorsing in appeal at decision of the learned trial Court, arises out of the following circumstances, Allah Bakhsh, petitioner, purchased the land in question from one Lal, son of Zaida, by means of the registered sale-deed, Exh. D.1, on .Th e 7th March, 1979. Pehalwan, respondent, a collateral heir of the vendor, brought suit to pre-empt the sale. The petitioner resisted the suit and asserted his superiority of right of pre-emption on the ground that the land comprised in his tenancy. However, the learned trial and the appellate Courts below did not accept his contention.
The suit of the respondent, who was heir of the vendor, was accordingly decreed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have totally ignored to consider the material documentary and other -evidence on the record bearing out the hard fact that the petitioner was in occupation of 63 Kanals 13 Merles of the land out of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of Khata No, 26 in dispute as tenant at the time of sale. The entries of the Jamabandi, copy Exh. D.3, and of the Khasra Girdawari, copy Exh. D.4, confirm and the learned counsel for the respondent concedes this fact. It is surprising that the learned Courts below failed properly to read and interpret these documents. The petitioner is recorded to be in possession as tenant Of 63 Kanals 13 Marlas of land out of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of Khata No, 26 as detailed below,-- {{Table}} 15 Marlas of land of Khata No, 26 Kanals Marlas Square No, 19 Killa No, 1/2 .. ..... 4 5 Killa No, 9 8 18 Killa No, 10 - 8 18 Square No, 28 Killa No, 21/2 6 00 Square No, 34 Killa No, 1 8 18 Kills No, 10 8 18 Killa No, 20 8 18 Killa No, 21 8 18 Total 63 13 ' The petitioner does not hold any land in tenancy in Khata No, 30 where from only one Marla of land had been purchased by him.
3. The petitioner admitted while appearing as his own witness, D.W.3, that he and Sardara, son of Mutali, had been jointly cultivating the land in dispute for the last eighteen years as tenants and that Sardara had 1/4th share and he himself 3/4th share of the tenancy. The learned counsel for the parties agree that as the petitioner purchased 203/745th share of the land of Khata No, 26 and he was tenant of 3/4th share in the tenancy land measuring 63 Kanals 13 Marlas, he was entitled to retain, by virtue of possessing better right of pre-emption in regard to his tenancy land, 3/4th of 203/745th of 63 Kanals 13 Marlas, that is, 12 Kanals 16 Marlas of the land in all; the rest of 17 Kanals 14 Marlas of the land in suit would go to the respondent. The petitioner would thus have 256/2235th and the respondent 354/2235th . Share of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of Khata No, 26.
4. In view of the above this petition is partially accepted and the impugned decisions are modified to the extent that instead of decree for possession of the entire land in dispute, decree for possession of 17 Kanals 14 Marlas of land being 354/2235th share of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of Khewat No, 26 plus one Marla of land of Khewat No, 30 is passed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent and against the defendant-petitioner; the respondent's suit for possession of 12 Kanals 16 Marlas of land being 256/2235th share of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas o land of Khewat No, 26 is dismissed. The respondent had paid in the trial Court the purchase money of Rs,45,000 which the petitioder Lac not withdrawn, it is lying in deposit for him. The respondent, in execution of the decree secured by him, has taken possession of the land in dispute. As the respondent is found to be eligible to get only 17 Kanals 14 Marlas of land the petitioner will be paid proportionat price of Rs,26,114.75 while the balance of Rs,18,885.25 will by taken back by the respondent. The petitioner will be restituted possession o 12 Kanals 16 Marlas of land being 256/2235th share of the land measuring 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of Khata No, 26 in dispute. The learned t-ia Court will restitute the possession of the aforesaid land to the petitioner. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.