' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The second vendee in a pre-emption suit seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-4-1992 whereby their revision petition was dismissed.
2. The sale which was pre-empted took place on 21-1-1971. The suit was instituted on 20-1-1972. Prior to the institution of the suit the vendee sold the pre-empted land to the petitioner in June, 1971. At that time the petitioner was not possessed of any superior right of pre-emption in recognition of which this sale could be made by the vendee in his favour. However, by a gift dated 18-10-1971 which was attested before the institution of the pre-emption suit, the petitioner acquired a superior right of pre-emption. On the basis of such acquisition of interest by sale and gift prior to the institution of the preemption suit, the petitioner wanted to defeat the pre-emption claim. He has not succeeded in the Courts below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as vendee the petitioner was entitled to improve his status before the institution of the suit or even before the passing of the decree. Such improvement should have been taken into account and if given effect to, the pre-emption claim could not succeed against him.
4. The legal proposition which the learned counsel for the petitioner is advancing is correct so are as the first vendee whose sale is sought to be pre emptied is concerned. As regards subsequent vendee, it has to be either in recognition of his preferential right of pre-emption that a sale can be made to him or if otherwise made it would be subject to doctrine of pendente lite. As the petitioner was not possessed of pre-emption right in June, 1971, the sale would not be in recognition of the right of pre-emption and it was a simple transfer governed by the doctrine of pendente lite in which the claim of the first vendee will match with that of the pre-emptor and not of the subsequent assignee. The decision of the High Court on the law point is correct.
5. In the circumstances, no case is made out for our interference and leave to appeal is refused.