Sarfraz Azam Lodra, respondent 1, purchased the house in dispute bearing No XVI-8S-91/XVI-8S-89, covering an area of 33 marlas situate in Mohallah Para Heran, Sialkot City, from Abdul Rehman, respondent No 2, by means of a sale-deed which was registered on the 12th November, 1974, for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 85,000.00. On the 18th January,1975, the appellants, Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ramzan, sons of Mian Muhammad Din, instituted suit to pre-empt the sale.
The appellants claimed superiority of pre--emptive right on the grounds that their house was contiguous to the house in dispute and that the two houses were dominant and servient properties.
2. The contesting respondent 1 resisted the suit and objected to its maintainability for the reason that the property in dispute was earlier situated in the locality known as Deh Para Heran Sialkot and after its inclusion in the Municipal limits of Sialkot no right of pre-emption in respect thereof existed in view of Notification No. 148 Rev., dated the 3rd March, 1916, issued by the Provincial Government under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act,1913. He controverted the appellants' averments, took exception to the correctness of the value of the house and pleaded waiver and estoppel.
3. The following is the text of Notification No. .148 Rev., dated the 3rd March, 1916:-- "No right of pre-emption shall exist in the agricultural land and village immovable property which is now or may hereafter be included within the limits of Sialkot Municipality."
4. The learned trial Court of the Civil Judge, Sialkot, took up the question of pre-emptibility of the sale in the light of the above referred notification as preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that no right of pre-emption existed in the property in dispute. Consequently by its judgment of the 28th July, 1985, it recorded dismissal of the suit.
5. The appellants appeal against the decision of the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, on the! 20th December,1988, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sardar A.I v. Muhammad A.I P.L.D.1988 S.C.287 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din [PLD 1988 S.C. 701], because the appellants were found not to have asserted talabs in the mode prescribed by Islamic law and they had not made any mention of such talabs in their plaint and further because no decree had been passed before the 30th July, 1986. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have approached this Court in further appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there existed no law for making talabs when the sale of the house in dispute took place and when the appellants instituted suit and when their suit was decided and, therefore, they were not obliged to make any talab. Nevertheless, this Court is bound to follow the law enunciated by the Supreme Court and the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court below is in conformity with that law. Therefore, no interference therewith is called for. This appeal is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./M-1578/L