1. ' ANWARUL HAQ J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court dated the 14th of June 1974, whereby a second appeal field by the petitioners in a pre-emption suit was dismissed.
2. ' The land in dispute was transferred to a displaced person named Kh. Ahmadullah under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
3. Act, 1958. By means of a registered sale deed dated the 20th of May 1961, he sold this land to the respondent Ghulam Jan for a sum of Rs, 30, 000. The mutation of sale was, however, rejected by the revenue Officer by his order dated the 23rd of August 1961 on the ground that the sale violated the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 6 ' On 17-5.62, Kh. Ahmedullah sold an area of 45 kanals, out of the disputed land, to one Mst. Noor Jehan for Rs, 45,000. Mutation No, 847 was attested in this behalf. This sale was challenged by the previous vendee Ghulam Jan, who succeeded in obtaining a decree against Mst. Noor Jehan, with the result that the earlier sale made in favour of Ghulam Jan remained intact.
4. ' At this stage the petitioner Sardar Khan entered the picture by instituting a suit on 21-5-62 for a declaration to the effect that the sale made by Kh. Ahmedullah in favour of Ghulam Jan was void and ineffective, on account of the contravention of certain provisions of Martial Law Regulation 64.
5. In the alternative the petitioner claimed possession of the land by pre-emption. As Sardar Khan did not deposit the pre-emption money, his claim in this behalf was rejected by the trial Court on 7-6-
62. The rest of the suit was dismissed in default under Order IX, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 22-11-62.
6. ' Now, it was the turn of the vendor Kh. Ahmedullah to challenge the validity of the sale he had hemself made in favour of the respondent Ghulam Jan. He filed a suit on 29-11-1962 for a declaration that the sale was void and ineffective as it violated the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 64.
7. ' This suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 28-2-1964, and Kb. Ahmedullah's appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 8-12-1964. Once again, the sale in favour of the respondent Ghulam Jan was upheld.
8. ' On 23-3-1966, two mutations bearing Nos. 997/1 and 998 were attested by the Revenue Officers in favour of the respendent Ghulam Jan on the basis of the registered sale deed dated the 20th of May 1961. Basing themselves on the mutation bearing No, 998, the petitioners filed a pre-emption suit on 22-9-1966 against Ghulam Jan with respect to an area measuring only 171 kanals 9 marlas of land, leaving out the remaining area on the ground that they could not claim any superior right in respect thereto. The suit was contested by the vendee, on several grounds, including the question of limitation. However, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners.
9. ' The vendee thereupon filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Peshawar, contending that the petitioners' suit was barred by time. It was submitted that the starting point of limitation was the date of the registered sale deed, namely, the 20th of May 1961, and not the date of the attestation of the mutation bearing No, 998. This contention found favour with the learned District Judge, and he held that there was no fresh sale at the time of the attestation of the mutation, and, therefore, the pre-emption suit, filed In 1966, was abvlously barred by time. This finding of the learned District Judge has been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.
10. ' It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned District judge as well as the High Court have fallen in error in thinking that the mutation bearing No, 998 was intended merely to give effect to the registered sale deed of the 20th of May 1961, as in fact the previous sale was void on account of the violation of certain provisions of Martial Law Regulation 64, and therefore, the mutation amounted to a fresh oral sale which was sought to be pre-empted by the petitioners. It is submitted that the history of litigation between the various parties interested in this land clearly shows that the previous sale was constantly under challenge not only by the present petitioners but also by the vendor himself, and therefore, no rights had accrued to the vendee under that sale.
11. ' The argument is clearly misconceived. From the history of litigation, as mentioned briefly in the preceding paragraphs, it becomes abundantly clear that in spite of the various challenges to the validity of the sale effected by the registered deed dated the 20th of May 1961 the same remained intact, and was finally upheld. The learned Judge in the High Court has even taken the trouble of comparing the Khasra numbers forming the subject-matter of the registers sale deed of the 20th of May 1961, and the mutation of sale attested on 23-3-1966, and has found that they substantially tally with each other, and that the differences, if any, are due to a partition which is alleged to have taken place after the sale. He has also taken note of the fact that the mutation in question was entered specifically with reference to the previous sale. In these circumstances, the High Court has expressed the view that the starting point of limitation must be the original sale and not the subsequent mutation which was entered in implementation thereof. We can find no fault with this finding. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.