' This judgment shall dispose of the civil revision in hand, namely, Civil Revision No, 1351/D of 1985 as well as Civil Revision No, 1352/D of 1985.
2. Civil Revision No, 1351/D of 1985 has arisen out of Civil Suit No, 555 of 1980 instituted by the petitioners, Ibrahim and others, against the respondent, Ghulam Hussain, for possession of certain land, through pre-emption. It was alleged that the said suit land was sold by Muhammad Iqbal in favour of the respondent but the transaction was given the colour of gift with a view to defeat pre- emptive rights. It was maintained by the petitioners that the sale had taken place for Rs, 3,000. They claimed right of pre-emption stating that they were owners of the estate in which the suit land was situate but the respondent was a stranger thereto. These averments were controverted by the respondent who also raised some other objections. Thereupon, following issues were framed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, who was seized of the suit :-
(1) Whether the impugned transaction is a gift. And the suit for pre-emption does not lie ? 0. P. D.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action ? O. P. D.
(3) Whether the suit is frivolous and the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C. P. C., if so, with what effect ? O. P. D.
(4) If issue No, 1 is held in negative, then whether the plaintiffs have superior right to sue ? 0. P. P.
(5) What would be the price or market value of the suit land ? O. P. P.
(6) Relief.
3. Learned Senior Civil Judge decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioners. Issue No,.3 was, however, decided in their favour. While dealing with Issue No, 4 it was remarked by the learned Senior Civil Judge that since there was no sale, there was no occasion to determine the question of superiority of the petitioners' right of pre-emption. On Issue No, 5 it was held by him that market value of the disputed land was Rs, 4,000. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. Petitioners went in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge and their appeal (Civil Appeal No, 1 1 1 of 1984) was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Bashir Malik, Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Civil Revision No, 1351/D of 1985 is directed against the said judgment and decree passed by him.
4. Civil Revision No, 1352/D of 1985 has arisen out of another suit, namely, Civil Suit No, 292 of 1980 filed by the petitioners against the respondent. It was also a pre-emption suit but it was in respect of a piece of land different from the one involved in Civil Suit No, 555 of 1980. The petitioners claimed right of pre-emption on the ground that they were owners of the estate but the respondent was a stranger, It was also pleaded by them that the sale had taken place for Rs, 80,000, but the sale price was ficticiously shown as Rs, 1,50,000 with a view to scare away the perspective pre-emptors. The respondent resisted the suit alleging that he was also owner of the estate for having acquired land through gift involved in Civil Suit No, 555 of 1980. Additionally it was maintained by him that the sale had taken place, in fact, for Rs, 1,50,000. He also advanced some other pleas to resist the suit. Following issues were, therefore, framed, in Civil Suit No, 292 of 1980, by the learned Senior Civil Judge who was seized of that suit also :-
(1) Whether the suit is barred by time ? 0. P. D.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have deliberately affixed deficit court-fee ? If so, what is its effect ? 0. P. D.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has superior right to sue ? 0. P. D.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right to sue ? 0. P. D.
(5) Whether the amount of Rs, 1,50,000 was fixed in good faith or actually paid ? 0. P. D.
(6) If Issue No, 5 is held in negative, then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale ? 0. P. P.
(7) Whether the defendant has effected improvements. If so, to what extent and with what amount ? 0. P. D.
(8) Whether the defendant is entitled to incidental charges. If so, to what amount ? O. P. D.
(9) Relief.
5. Issues Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 were not pressed by learned counsel for the respondent and, therefore, they were disposed of accordingly. As regards Issue No, 3, it was held by learned Senior Civil Judge that in view of the said gift in favour of the respondent, he was as good an owner of the estate as the petitioners. He, therefore, decided the Issue No, 3 against the petitioners. As for Issues Nos. 5 and 6 it was held by him that the sale price of Rs, 1,50,000 was actually paid, and that it was also the market value of the land in dispute. In conclusion, the suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil. Judge. Appeal preferred by the petitioners, namely, Civil Appeal No, 110 of 1984 was also dismissed by the said learned Additional District Judge. Hence Civil Revision No, 1352/D of 1985.
6. Assailing judgments and decrees passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the said two appeals, it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional District Judge did not apply his mind to the issues requiring determination and, therefore, appeals deserved to be remanded to him for fresh decision, in this connection he invited my attention to the discussion of the learned Additional District Judge on various issues which has nothing to do with the respective issues whereunder his discussion appears. For instance, in Civil Suit No, 555 of 1980, giving rise to Civil Appeal No, 111 of 1984 and Civil Revision No, 1351/D of 1985, Issue No, 1 was framed by the learned Senior Civil Judge with a view to finding out true nature of the gift involved in the said suit but Issue No, 1 reproduced by the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment in the said appeal is in regard to the question of limitation framed in Civil Suit No, 292 of 1980 which has given rise to Civil Appeal No, 110 of 1984 and Civil Revision No, 1352/D of 1985. After a careful examination of all the matters, I have come to the conclusion that since both the appeals were decided together by the learned Additional District Judge, issues framed in one suit were reproduced by him in his judgment in the appeal relating to the other suit and vice versa. This aspect of the matter was, however, not attended to by the learned Additional District Judge and necessary action shall be taken for the above lapse on his part. If findings of the learned Additional District Judge are examined with reference to the issues actually framed in the respective suits to which his judgments relate, they do make sense and it cannot be said that he did not apply his mind while recording his finding, I am, therefore, not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional District Judge decided the appeals without applying mind to the issues framed in the two suits.
7. On merits, the only attack of the learned counsel was on the gift in dispute. His plea was that the gift was hit by the Law Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No, 115). It was complained by the learned counsel that the learned Additional District Judge did not record any finding on the said plea although it was raised in the grounds of appeal. According to him, entire land owned by the maker of the gift, namely, Muhammad lqbal was 18 Kanals and the gift in dispute was not in regard to the whole of the said land but for 6 Kanals of land only. This point was not canvassed by the petitioners in either of the written statements filed by them. There is also no evidence to substantiate they plea except the statement of Muhammad Iqbal to which reference was mad by his learned counsel. It was simply deposed by Muhammad Iqbal -the he inherited 18 Kanals of land from his father and made gift of 6 Kanais of land. He did not say that he did not inherit other land from anyone else or did not acquire any land himself. Thus, there was not sufficient material on the record to strike down the gift in dispute on the score of the said Regulation. No useful purpose will, therefore, be served by remanding the appeal to learned Additional District Judge for recording a finding on the above plea of the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel half-heartedly assailed the judgments of the learned lower Courts by saying that they suffered from the defect of misreading of evidence. No misreading was, however, pointed out by him. His contention in this behalf has, therefore, no force.
9. No other point was raised by the learned counsel.
10. Resultantly, both the civil revisions fail and they are dismissed in limine.