1. ' 279 kanals, 17 marlas of land situate in revenue estate Marian of Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh was owned by Murad Ali By. Mutation No, 697 sanctioned on 26-4-1966, he sold it to Faqir son of Noor Muhammad, Ghulam Rasool, Mohammad Ismail, Mohammad Ibrahim, Wali Muhammad, Mohammad Ramzan and Mohammad Sharif Sons of Karam Elahi for consideration of Rs,40,000.
2. Mohammad Ismail since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives asserted his superior right of pre-emption on the grounds of being an owner of the estate, and, contiguous land and sued to pre-empt the sale. Preemption suit was instituted on 25-4-1947, in the Court at Alipur.
3. ' Defendants contested the suit, and, repudiated the material averments in the plaint. The trial Court settled issues arising for determination and then postponed the suit for evidence. However, before evidence could be taken on file, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Local Commissioner for determination of market value of the land and expenses incurred on improvements by the defendants. Later, upon an application of the defendants disclosing pendency of another pre- emption suit by the plaintiff against them which was likely to affect the decision in this pre-emption suit, on 9-4-1969, the trial Court sent the suit-file to learned District Judge for ordering concurrent trial of both the pre-emption suits. Thereupon, the pre-emption suit was transferred to the file of Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, on 23-4-1969. However, pre-emption suits were not consolidated for a joint trial. Though they proceeded simultaneously but independently. On 12-6-1971, pre-emption suit was dismissed in default of appearance. On 21-7-1973, it was restored to file. In revision, restoration order was reversed on 20-3-1974 by learned Additional District Judge but upon a further petition (W.P.875 of 1974) filed in the High Court, order passed by the trial Court was restored on 19-11-1984. Thereupon, parties gave evidence, and, upon its consideration, the trial Court held that plaintiffs were owners of the estate and gave them the decree for the land upon their paying Rs,40,000 as price to the vendees by or before 18-6-1986. On vendees' appeal (Civil Appeal No, 85/13 of 1986), learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh reversed the finding on issue No,3 and found that the land owned by the appellants were not assessed to land revenue. Therefore, they were not invested with the legal status of being owners of the estate. Consequently, on 18-5- 1986, appeal was allowed and after setting aside judgment and decree of the trial Court, pre- emption suit was dismissed. Against this decision, appellants have come up in second appeal. It was admitted to hearing on 1-11-1988.
4. ' Only question raised in second appeal was whether appellants were owners of the estate and consequently had superior right of pre-emption. In order to prove that pre-emptor was owner of the estate at the time of sale sought to be pre-empted by him, apart from an oral statement of P.W.2, certified copies of holding slips (khataunis killabandi) Exts. P1 to P13, and copy of inheritance mutation No,774 dated 26-5-1970 sanctioned upon the death of the original preemptor during pendency of the pre-emption suit were tendered in evidence. PW.2 deposed that his father owned land in village Marian, whereas, vendees were non-owners. Khataunis Exts.P1 to P13 merely indicated that the original pre-emptor owned agricultural land in village Marian which upon his death was mutated in favour of his successors vide Ext.P14. Khataunis Exts.P1 to P13 were not proof of the fact that the land mentioned in them was assessed to land revenue. Column 10 of Ext. P14 which dealt with survey/field number showed that the land mutated was assessed at Rs,7.68 jama.
5. Relevant Column of mutation sheet dealing with jama and mutation fee was column No,13 which was left blank altogether. A holding slip is merely in the nature of a preparatory document intended to assist correct preparation of revenue records. It does not form part of Record of Rights or Periodical Records. Its entries do not attract presumption of truth. Its purpose, mode of preparation, and, form are given in paragraph 256 and Appendix VII of the Settlement Manual; by Sir James M.
6. Douie, Chapter 7.39-A of the Land Records Manual, and, Form XXXVIII (Appendix 'A') prescribed under Rule 72 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Though presumption of truth may not attract to the entries in holding slip, yet it could not be said to be' a document altogether without value as what is stated in it. It is prepared by a public servant in discharge of his official duty required to be performed by him. At the hearing, none claimed forgery in respect of entries in them nor could such a presumption be ever raised with regard to them. Therefore, in view of Article 49 read with illustration (e) of Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, entries in Exts. P1 to P13 supported by the statement of PW.2 can be accepted as good evidence of ownership of agricultural land in the revenue estate by the original pre-emptor which upon his death had devolved upon his successors. To this extent, there was no doubt that the original pre-emptor owned land in the revenue estate. This fact was even conceded by Inam Karim Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. But mere ownership of land in the revenue estate shall not be of much assistance because to be an owner of estate one must own land in the revenue estate which is also assessed to land revenue. - Both the above factors are not only essential but must co-exist also. See Salehon Muhammad and another v. Shera and others 1977 SC M R 297, Murid Hussain R v. Muhammad Lal 1987 CLC 101, Abdul Hamid and 2 others v. Mehrban Ali--1989 CLC 195 Abdul Rashid and others versus Khurshid Ahmad and others--PLD 1989 S.C. 373 (2) and an unreported judgment in Civil Revision No,599- D/1987 decided on 27-3-1988 by Munir A. Sheikh, J., at Multan Bench. Except for a solitary entry in column 10 of Ext. P14, there was no independent evidence to show assessment of the land revenue on the land owned by the pre-emptor. Ext.P14 was sanctioned during the pendency of the pre-emption suit. Therefore, mere entry of assessment of land revenue as shown in column 10 of Ext. P14, in absence of other sufficient material from any other quarter could not be accepted as good evidence to hold that the land owned by the appellants was assessed to land revenue. Possibility of an interpolation hinted at the hearing could not be ruled out. An extract from the previous jamabandi showing assessment of land revenue on the land could have been filed but that was not done. Mutation though a public document prepared by a public servant in discharge of his official functions is only a relevant piece of evidence but does not attract presumption of truth to its entries. Therefore, upon a mere entry in column 10 of Ext.P14, it shall not be safe to find that the land owned by the pre-emptors was assessed to land revenue at the time of sale sought to be pre-empted by them. Be that as it may, even if entry in column 10 of Ext.P14, is taken to be a correct statement and the appellants are found to be owners of land assessed to land revenue, they cannot succeed, because in the connected civil appeal (RSA 137 of 1988) between the same parties decided by me today, appellants were not held owners of the estate, and, decision of the lower appellate Court dismissing pre-emption suit was upheld. Necessary corollary of the above decision would be that the land purchased by the respondents vide mutation 696 dated 26-4-1966 which no doubt was assessed to land revenue, would place them at par with the appellants. In that eventuality, both shall be owners of the estate and the appellants could not claim any preference qua the respondents.
7. ' Having regard to the aforesaid, second appeal is bound to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to its costs.