' Brief facts are that petitioner No,1 and his brother Muhammad Ramzan (now deceased) predecessors of the remaining petitioners purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs,5,000 vide Mutation No, 174 dated 4-10-1968. Mst. Zainab Khatoon respondent filed a suit for pre-eruption which was decreed in her favour on 2-7-1973 by the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran. The appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Multan which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4-6-1975. An appeal was preferred before this Court, but it failed.
2. The respondent did not file the execution petition regarding the suit property. However, she filed an application to the Additional Commissioner for the implementation of the judgment and decree passed in her favour. This application was accepted and she succeeded in getting the Mutation Nos.1498 and 1499 sanctioned in her favour on 22-3-1986. The petitioners/judgmentdebtors filed a suit titled Juma and others v. Mst. Zainab to the effect that they were owners-in-possession of the suit property and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 16-3-1986 and the mutations detailed above were illegal, void and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners/judgment-debtors. It was prayed that the petitioners be restrained from interfering in their ownership and possession. The suit was resisted by Mst. Zainab/decree-holder. She averred that she had deposited the pre-emption money in the Court and the same was received by the judgment-debtors. She, therefore, became the owner of the property and the period of limitation did not extinguish her right/title. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaint is under-valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) What is the effect of preliminary objection No,6 in the written statement? OPD
(5) Whether the defendant is entitled to recover special costs? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property? OPP
(7) Whether the Mutations Nos.1498 and 1499 dated 22-3-1986 and orders of Additional Commissioner, Multan dated 16,-3-1988 are liable to be cancelled being against law and facts, in operative qua the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(8) Whether the entries in the Revenue Record are liable to be rectified? OPP
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction as consequential relief? OPP.
(10) Relief.
3. Admittedly the pre-emption suit was decreed in favour of Mst. Zainab and she had deposited decretal amount within time. The same was received by the petitioners. It is well-established that a decree-holder becomes the owner of suit property when the decretal amount is deposited by him within time. Reliance can be placed upon Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another (PLD 1973 Lahore 207), wherein it was observed:-- "It was next contended that the High Court cannot give direction to the Revenue Authorities to enter a mutation. He relied on Muhammad Iqbal v. S.A.M. Khan PLD 1970 Lah.
614. The case was one where the right of a person had not been adjudicated upon by a Court and the writ was refused on the ground that sanctioning of the mutation neither creates a right nor does it take away any right of a person and that it only gives effect to a completed transaction of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage etc. The position here is different. There is a decree of the Civil Court by which respondent acquired a title in the land in dispute. The Revenue Authorities are obliged under law to give effect to the decree. Section 45 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue (Act (XVII of 1967) provides: 'Entries in a record-of-rights shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties'. The Revenue Authorities are thus required by law to give effect to the decree and change entries in accordance with the rights determined thereby and if they fail to give effect to a decree by sanctioning mutation, a direction can be given to them under Article 98 to act in accordance with the provisions of section 45 of the Act, because the decree is a conclusive proof of the title in a property."
' The principle enunciated in the above-cited case was affirmed by the Hounourable Supreme Court in Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another (1972 SCM R 322).
4. For the foregoing reasons this petition is not tenable and is hereby dismissed in limine.