This civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees dated ,18-6-1995 and 7-4-1997 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class and the Additional District Judge, Kharian, District Gujiat, whereby the suit for possession through pre-emption and the appeal of the petitioner were dismissed.
2. By mutation No.3083 dated 16-12-1991, the respondent got transferred in his favour a land measuring 2 Kanals and 5 Marlas in exchange of his land which was purchased by him in the year 1988. The petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, inter alia, on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the same property. It was averred that the transaction in question was, in fact, a sale and not an exchange. At one stage, the trial Court had decreed the suit but the same was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge and the case was remanded for decision afresh. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Kharian, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18-6-1995 dismissed the suit of the petitioner primarily on the grounds that the property was not pre-emptiable the transaction being an exchange and not a sale arid that the petitioner failed to prove the necessary legal talbs required to be made by him. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-4-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian, District Gujrat. Hence, this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel has contended that after the remand of the case by the learned appellate Court, the same was transferred to another Presiding Officer which dismissed the suit of the petitioner by misreading of evidence and by the commission of material irregularity causing miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner did make Talb-i- Muwathibat on 1-1-1992 for Rs.45,000 and Talb-i-Ishad on 6-1-1992 which satisfied the requirements of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. He further submitted that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court failed to consider the written statement filed by the respondent, The learned counsel contended that it was proved by evidence on record that the impugned transaction was, as a matter of fact, a sale under the garb of exchange of land which was pre-emptiable property. The learned counsel submitted that this was a fit case calling for interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. He relied on the cases of Arif Yazdani and others v. Sheikh Abdus Salam and others (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 983), Shadi Khan and 3 others v. Makhmad and 7 others (PLD 1975 Peshawar 188), Malik Hadayat Ullah and 2 others v.
Murad A.I Khan (PLD 1972 SC 69), Muhibullah Khan v. Sadiq Khan (1986 SCMR 270), Riasat A.I v.
Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others (1991 SCMR 496), Muhammad Bakhsh and 4 others v.
Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan (now Lodhran) and 2 others (1994 SCMR 1836) and Shahab-ud-Din and others v. Mst. Mariam Bibi and others (1995 MLD 45) in support of his contentions. .
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel at length. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact on Issues Nos.3, 4 and 8 with regard to the talbs and the nature of the transaction which was sought to be pre-empted by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to mention the necessary particulars of Tal --i-Muwathibat as to the date, time or other source of information by giving the names of persons in whose presence the said talb was made. This finding of fact on issue No.4 has also been affirmed by the learned appellate Court against the petitioner. The petitioner who appeared as P.W.3 admitted in his statement that he had gone to the house of Fazal and called Mehdi Khan and that he accompanied by Rafi, Khadim Hussain, Ashraf, Iqbal and Mehdi Khan asked the Trolleyman about the ownership of the bricks at the site who told him that the same belonged to Abdul Rehman the respondent and there he did make Talb-i--Muwathibat. The statement of the petitioner itself shows that he failed to make the jumping demand in the first meeting with Fazal and Mehdi Khan or even in the gathering of Rafi, Khadim Hussain, Ashraf and Mehdi Khan. No date orI place of making the declaration of Talb-i-Muwathibat was even mentioned in the plaint. It was for these reasons that both the Courts below came to a definite A conclusion that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the conditions of talbs as required by the Islamic law as also by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Reference may be made to the cases of Shafi Muhammad v. Muhammad Hazar Khan and 5 others (1996 SCMR 346), Gul Hussain Shah v.
Mulazim Hussain Shah (1996 SCMR 294) and Muhammad Sarwar v. Ashiq A.I (PLD 1995 Lahore 133). '
5.There is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the petitioner had failed to prove the transaction to be a sale under the disguise of an exchange of agricultural land in order to defeat the right of pre-emption of the petitioner. The learned counsel has not pointed out any misreading or non--reading of evidence so as to justify the contrary conclusion: Even otherwise, it is lawful and permissible to defeat the right of pre-emption by any legitimate C means or device of exchange of immovable property. Refers the cases of Ch. Ghulam Ahmad Khan v. Diwan Sheikh Ghulam Qutab-ud-Din and another (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore 461), Faqir Shah and others v. Khalo Khan and others (PLD 1951 Peshawar 14), Ata Muhammad Khan v. Mst. Khanzadi (1976 SCMR 104), Khan Muhammad v. Sardar Amjad Farooq Khan, etc. (1979 SCMR 285), Muhammad Irshad and 4 others v. Sardar Khan (1981 CLC 124 (Lahore) and Ghulam Hussain through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Miraj Bibi (1995 MLD 435).
6.I do not find that any material irregularity or illegality had been committed by the Courts below in recording their findings and passing the p impugned judgments and decrees nor the same suffer from the defect of any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. See the case of Sheikh Muhammad Bashir A.I and others v. Sufi Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din (1996 SCMR 813).
7.For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision