1. ' Ali Muhammad appellant purchased agriculture land measuring 12 Kanals 4 Marlas comprising of Khasra Nos.1030-1031 situated in Mauza Qutbal, Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock on 23rd of April, 1979 from Mehr Muhammad etc. The sale was pre-empted by one Muhammad Saeed through a regular suit instituted on 23-4-1980. Soon after the sale, the appellant/vendee promptly sold away the same land to Mst. Sadaqat Begum and Mst. Farida Begum (respondents) for Rs,1,00,000 through registered sale-deed dated 27-5-1980.
2. Neither Ali Muhammad appellant disclosed to the respondents/vendees about the pendency of pre-emption suit in respect of same land nor they themselves could know about the suit.
3. On knowing about the institution of the suit Mst. Sadaqat Begum and Farida Begum, both, applied for impleadment of party as being subsequent purchasers of land, for the safeguard of their proprietary rights. Their application was accepted and they were made party to the proceedings in the preemption suit filed by Muhammad Saeed. The appellant (Ali Muhammad) contested the suit half-heartedly and it was Mst. Sadaqat Begum and Mst. Panda Begum who participated in the legal battle in a full-fledged manner by engaging their own counsel and bearing the expenses of litigation. Ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of Muhammad Saeed Khan pre-emptor against sale price of Rs,6,000 as fixed by the learned trial Court. Consequently the land purchased by Mst. Sadaqat Begum etc. Was passed on to Muhammad Saeed the decree- holder, as a result of that the respondents lost the land and money both. The land they could not retrieve because it had passed on to decree-holder by operation of law and for the money, they instituted a regular civil suit for recovery of the same in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock against Muhammad Ali, the present appellant.
2. ' The suit was resisted on various grounds as illustrated in the written ' statement. The learned trial Court in order to resolve the controversies existing between the parties framed following issues arising out of propositions of law and facts:---
(1) Whether the defendant alienated the land, as stated in the para. No,1 of the plaint, against a consideration of Rs,1,00,000 and the same was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs,1,00,000 from the defendant? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time?
(4) Relief.
3. ' The learned trial Court decreed the suit for sum of Rs,1,00,000 with costs, in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-1988 on the basis of findings recorded on all the issues against the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed against, assailed the same in appeal that was heard by the District Judge, Attock, that met the same fate. The appellant/defendant filed this R.S.A.
4. Against both the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and as well by the District Judge.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has argued since the defendant at the time of sale in favour of respondents had no prior knowledge of institution of suit for pre-emption by Muhammad Saeed, therefore, there was no mala fide on his part and in case as a result of decree the respondents/plaintiffs had lost the land for that he was not to be blamed and punished. Further argued that the land went to Muhammad Saeed by operation of law and the appellant/defendant was not obliged to compensate the subsequent transferees. As regards the findings of fact with regard to the payment of Rs,1,00,000 as sale consideration to the appellant/defendant, the learned counsel could not point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence to challenge the findings.
6. Therefore, the payment of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) as a sale price stands proved.
7. Even if it is taken as correct that the appellant/defendant had no knowledge about the institution of the suit at the time when he entered into sale transaction with respondents/plaintiffs, he still cannot avoid his responsibility to recompense the respondents/plaintiffs because as a result of decree in preemption suit he was made entitled to recover the original sale price paid by him at the time of first sale. In the registered sale-deed Exh.D1 executed in favour of respondents, it is clearly stipulated that alien or (Ali Muhammad) would be liable to make good the loss, if any, incurred by the alienates (respondents/defendants) on account of any defect or error found in the deal. It is strange that the appellant/defendant has also recovered the first sale price paid by him from the pre-emptor/decree-holder and at the same time he wants to retain the second sale price received from the present respondent on flimsy grounds neither supported by law nor by equity.
8. ' The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/vendor at the time of second sale had no prior knowledge of institution of suit for pre-emption does not hold good for the reason that the doctrine of lis pendens is equally applicable to pre-emption suit. Any sale of immovable property to which law of pre-emption is applicable then during the period of limitation for pre-empting the same the superior right of pre-emption if available remains protected. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwar Muhammad Sharif and others v. Maqbool and others 1991 SCM R 1419 that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to pre-emption claims except in one situation where the sale by the vendee is to one who has a superior right of preemption.
9. Further the similar principle was adopted in Kamir and others v. Mst. Shamim and others 1994 M LD 2139 and Ghulam Haider and others v. Hayat Muhammad and others 1994 CLC 1852 Lahore.
10. Moreover this is a second appeal arising out of the concurrent findings of the Courts below and neither any jurisdictional defect nor non-reading or misreading of evidence nor any other material irregularity is pointed out in the judgments of the Courts below and as such interference is legally not warranted.
11. ' In view of the above this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs throughout and the impugned judgments and the decrees dated 19-4-1988 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Attock and dated 3- 1-1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Attock, respectively are upheld.