' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioners/vendees seek leave to appeal from judgment dated 22-2-1993, of the= Lahore High Court, whereby R.F.A. 53 of 1983, filed by them was dismissed.
2. The petitioners purchased land in dispute through registered sale-deed dated 3-11-1977. Moulvi Muhammad Bashir, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on 4-11-1978, instituted a suit for possession through preemption claiming superior right of pre-emption as against the vendees.
The petitioners in written statement controverted the plaintiff's plea that he had superior right of pre-emption. Learned trial Judge after evaluating evidence on the record produced by the parties decreed the suit on 11-6-1983, by holding that the pre-emptor had established his superior right of pre-emption. The objection raised by the petitioners that the oral sale made through mutation "Exh.
D/3 in favour of the plaintiff did not confer any title of ownership on him was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff had matured his right of ownership through adverse possession. The petitioners assailed the aforementioned decree in Regular First Appeal, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court as aforementioned.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioners contended that since the sale was not made in the manner and the form as provided in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it did not create any right of ownership in the land in favour of the pre-emptor. The transactions evidenced through registered deeds only were held valid transactions. It is not denied that the pre- emptor had been regularly recorded ever since 1956 as owner of the land in the Revenue Record.
The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly held that the pre-emptor became owner of the land in the estate by being in adverse possession for over a decade. The respondent/pre-emptor had matured his right of ownership by prescription. Admittedly the petitioners/vendees were not owners in the estate as against the pre-emptor who being owner had a superior right of pre-emption. The suit was, therefore, rightly decreed in his favour.
4. In the circumstances, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgments. Resultantly, this petition fails. The leave to appeal in this case is, therefore, refused.