' This is a revision petition filed by the above-named petitioners against the order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad dated 21-5-1963. Whereby he allowed the respondents right of pre.Emption over S. Nos. 358 to 389 area 149-17 acres in Deb Hassani-Taluka lati, District Thatta, which had been purchased by the petitioner.
' Fact of the case are contained in the impugned order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad and need not be repeated.
3. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the case papers.
4. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents were not Hans at the time of sale and the Commissioner has given finding in the impugned order that on the crucial date none of the respondent was Hari of the land in question. The counsel further contended that Commissioner has allowed the right of pre-emption on the ground that prior to sale of the land the respondents were Hans. The counsel argued that right of pre-emption could be allowed only when the Hari cultivates the land during the crucial period. The counsel also argued that the respondent had no right at all and even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the respondents had right then too they have waived in favour of petitioners by a written instrument/ agreement duly attested by the Mukhtiarkar and First Class Magistrate. The counsel for the petitioners prayed that his clients are ready to make payment for verification of signature/thumb-impression if these signature thumb-impression of the respondents affixed on the agreement are sent to the Finger Print Bureau, Sind, Karachi. The counsel for the respondents also conceded to this arrangement.
5. I had sent both hands thumb-impression clearly recorded with black printers ink by a trained operator to the Finger Print Bureau Sind, Karachi alongwith the original documents in order to obtain the expert opinion with regard to signature/thumb-impression. The Deputy Superintendent of Police of the bureau under his letter No, R. N.
0. 151, dated 20-8-1985, has declined to give opinion on the ground that the impression on agreement are blurred, indistinct and not clear and hence no opinion was accorded. The respondents had declined to purchase the land in dispute and had executed such agreement which is duly attested by the First Class Magistrate. Therefore, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the attestation of the Magistrate and truthness is attached to every documents until it is proved contrary. The counsel for the respondents failed to prove the incorrectness of the document as such it is to be relied upon. The respondents have stated in the aforementioned deed that they (respondents) had declined to purchase the property in question and had allowed the vendor to sell the lands to anybody he pleased to which they had no objection. This statement amounts to waiver of rights of pre-emption by the respondents. Since a complete waiver had been established the respondents were estopped from suing to enforce their rights. Furthermore, the respondents were not the Hans on crucial date of B the disputed as observed by the Commissioner in the impugned order.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad and reject the e pre-emption right allowed to the respondents in respect of the disputed land. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.