' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---This is an appeal by leave of this Court from judgment and decree dated 18-1-1993, of learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Civil Revision No,1123/1977.
2. The appellant orally purchased the suit land measuring 52 Canals and 13 Marla's from Mst. Razia Begum and Munir Ahmad vendors. Later on the appellant got the oral sale of the land in question confirmed through a consent decree dated 6-7-1971, passed by Civil Judge, Chakwal. The transaction of sale was evidenced through Mutation No,2709, on 23-12-1972.
3. Ghulam Haider respondent on 13-12-1973, instituted suit for possession of the land in dispute through pre-emption. The suit was contested by the appellant mainly on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. It was pleased that the plaintiff had himself issued a legal notice dated 25-8-1971, to the appellant testifying the transaction of sale therefore, the suit was instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Civil Judge, Chakwal, framed necessary issues including the issue on the point of limitation and recorded the evidence led by the parties.
He, however, found the suit having been instituted within time and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 4-11-1976. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Jhelum, reversed the finding of the learned Trial Judge, on the point of limitation and dismissed the suit, as such, on 23-6-1977. The respondent assailed the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court in revision which was allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18-1-1993, passed by the Lahore High Court as aforementioned.
4. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the physical possession of part of the suit land was delivered to the vendee appellant under the oral sale before consent decree dated 6-7-1971, was passed in his favor, therefore, the pre-emption suit instituted on 13-12-1973, was grossly barred by time. Learned counsel referred to copy of the Jamabandi Exh.P/3 for the year 1969-70 to show that Khasra No,313 was in self-cultivation of the owners and possession of land measuring 15 Canals and 14 Marla's, out of the land in dispute was delivered to the vendee, therefore, the suit instituted after more than a year was barred by time under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. To reinforce his submission, he relied on the notice dated 25-8-1971, issued by the respondent admitting the sale of the suit land in favour of the appellant.
5. The perusal of the entries in the relevant document Exh.P/3 pertaining to Khasra No,313 shows that the same was in joint cultivating possession of the owners. The land in dispute being part of the joint Khata was not capable of physical possession by the vendee, the period of limitation thus was to be calculated from the date of the attestation of the mutation of sale. The notice referred to above did not show that the physical possession of the suit land had been delivered to the vendee.
The learned Civil Judge after appraising evidence on the record rightly decreed the suit. The learned First Appellate Court misread the evidence to raise presumption that the vendors were in exclusive possession of a part of the disputed property and had delivered possession thereof to the vendee. It is manifest from the record that in the ownership column of Exh.P/3 the names of the other co-sharers of the joint Khata were mentioned to signify that Khasra No,313 was in joint cultivating possession of all the vendors. Learned counsel for appellant was unable to point out any document on the record to show that the joint Khata out of which the land in dispute was alienated had been partitioned and the vendors were in exclusive cultivating possession thereof and they in turn delivered possession of the whole or a part of it to the appellant.
6. In our view this appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.