1. ' Second appeal at the instance of defendants in the suit for preemption is against a judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha dated 26-5-1982 by which appeal filed in his Court was dismissed and judgment of learned trial Judge, passed on 13-5-1979, by which he had decreed pre-emption suit in favour of respondent was maintained and affirmed.
2. ' Appeal arises from facts and circumstances stated below: By Mutation No,1175 attested on 12-7- 1971, Allah Diwaya sold 4 Kanals and 13 Marlas of Milkiat land with a corresponding share of Shamilat in Khatas Nos.124, 182, 183, situated in Revenue Estate of Nawan Saghu in Tehsil Khushab for sale price of Rs,5,000 to Ghulam Muhammad son of Sheran. Respondent claimed pre-emption in respect of the sale on the grounds of being real brother of the vendor and a co-sharer in the land sold. Pre-emption suit was instituted on 12-7-1972, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Sargodha. Suit was entrusted for trial to Civil Judge at Jauharabad Sub-Division. It was received in his Court on 14-7-1972 and was put up before him on 15-7-1972. By Mutation No,251, sanctioned on 24-3-1974, land in dispute was further transferred by the original vendee in favour of his sons Muhammad Arif, Alam Sher, Muhammad Azeem and Niaz Ahmad. Subsequent transferee! Were impleaded as defendants to the pre-emption suit.
3. ' Defendants submitted written statement and resisted the suit. Upon review of evidence, the trial Court decreed pre-emption suit in favour of respondent. Appeal filed against this judgment was dismissed in the lower appellate Court. Though the pre-emption suit was tried on as many as five issues in the Trial Court, yet the only issue surviving for decision in the appeal was: whether the pre- emption suit was barred by limitation. As for the superior right of pre-emption, price payable for the land and valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee, there was no longer any dispute between the parties. Courts below have found that pre-emption suit when first instituted was in time. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended differently. It was submitted that on the record, there was no sufficient proof that possession of a portion of the land sold was taken under the sale at a point of time separated for more than a year from the date of institution of the pre-emption suit and the learned Courts below in holding a converse view had misread the evidence. I do not think that this argument holds water and has any substance in it. Sale of a share of the land out of joint Khata was reported to the village Patwari on 7-7-1971. Girdawar Halqa verified the entries in the mutation on 10-7-1971. On 12-7-1971, this mutation was put up before the Revenue Officer for an appropriate inquiry and its attestation. On this date, the vendor and Alam Sher son of the vendee identified by a Sarbrah Lambardar of the village, appeared before the Revenue Officer and admitted the sale of the land in dispute and transfer of its possession under the sale. Upon the statement of the parties, sale-mutation was attested by the Revenue Officer on 12-7-1971. A copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 196566, Exh.P.5 indicated that a share in Khata No,61 was owned by Malook son of Niazi. This Khata measured 67 Kanals and 5 Marlas. It comprised in Khasra Nos.59, 149, 169, 204 and 205, Malook also owned a share in village Shamilat.
4. By a Mutation No,1127. Malook had donated a share out of Khata No,61 to his son Allah Diwaya. Copy of mutation itself is not on the file but a reference to it found mention in Kafiat-column of Exh.P.5. To support and prove transfer of physical possession of a portion of land under the sale, learned counsel heavily relied upon entries in the extracts from Register Khasra Girdawari Exh.D-3, Exh.D-4 and an extract from daily diary of village Patwari which had recorded changes regarding possession on Khasra numbers noted in Exh.D-3 and Exh.D-4. Learned counsel also referred to oral evidence of two D.Ws. And the statement on oath of the defendant himself as D.W.
3. Neither the oral evidence adduced to establish transfer of physical possession preceding attestation of sale-mutation was of sufficient nature nor the entries in Exh.D-3 and Exh.D-4 were adequate proof of transfer of possession of a portion of the land hold A little probe of the entries in Exh.D-3 and D-4, would reveal that those did not appear to inspire confidence for placing reliance upon them. As observed above, factum of sale was reported to the village Patwari on 7-7-1971.
5. Strangely, exactly four months prior to this report, a Patwari recorded possession of Ghulam Muhammad vendee on the land measuring 157 Kanals, of village Shamilat in Khasra Nos. 2566/58, 2232-2233/52-42-61 and 7 Kanals, 5 Marlas of proprietary land comprised in Khasra No,59 with effect from 7-3-1971 on account of a conceptive sale. The entry recorded in the Khasra runs as " {{URDU TEXT}} ".Whether such an entry could have been entered in the Register and at whose instance it became to be incorporated was an open question, On record, there was no satisfactory material to resolve this riddle. Patwari, who made the entry did not appear in the witness-box to explain it.
6. Independent of sale-mutation Exh.P-4, there was no reliable evidence to establish sale of the land, payment of sale-price and transfer of possession under the sale prior to entry and attestation of the mutation. Oral evidence of D.Ws. Was hardly sufficient for this purpose. Similar was the position with regard to the self-interested oral testimony of original vendee namely Ghulam Muhammad.
7. There was no document to evidence payment of sale-price and transfer of possession under the sale. In my opinion, entry relating to transfer of possession in Exh.D-3 and Exh.D-4 appeared to be manipulated and looked doubtful. In the result of a careful analysis of the recorded material, learned Courts below had concluded that transfer of possession prior to attestation of mutation was not proved. In taking this view, they were not shown to have acted in disregard of any item of evidence or omitted from their review any relevant circumstances. Therefore, agreed finding on point of limitation which turned on the factum about transfer of possession under the sale was neither infirm nor faulty. Limitation bar was pressed in aid from another angle also. It was urged that the plaint in the preemption suit was presented to Senior Civil Judge on 12-7-1972 at District Headquarters Sargodha, whereas, in law, it ought to have been filed before a Civil Judge stationed at Jauharabad. Upon this view, it was urged that the plaint shall be deemed to have been presented to the proper Court on 14-7-1972, when reached the Civil Court at Jauharabad on transfer from Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha. The argument though spacious, but had little merit.
8. Firstly, the Civil Judge at Jauharabad was on leave on 12-7-1972 and there was enough support for this statement on record. Therefore, the Civil Court at Jauharabad shall be deemed to be closed for the leave-period of the Civil Judge stationed at that place. Secondly, jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge of Sargodha District extended to the entire territorial limits of the District to which he was posted. Under the Law, he was authorised to entertain the plaint relating to the land located in any part of Sargodha District. It was not denied that on the day of presentation of the plaint at Sargodha, pre-emption suit from the date of attestation of sale-mutation was in time. On both counts, therefore, the appeal was bound to fail.
9. ' Having regard to the aforesaid, appeal is found to have no substance in it. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to its costs in this Court. Records be returned.