' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 14-4-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Mst. Faiz Elahi, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.19 to 21, sold land measuring 372 Kanals, situated in Mauza Karra Manjal, Tchsil and District Bahawalpur in favour of Sh. Ahmad Hassan, predecessor-in-interest of Malik Ashiq Hussain etc., respondents Nos.6 to 10, for Rs,20,000. Muhammad Amin Khan, the petitioner herein, pre-empted the sale by filing a suit, being a co-owner in the village. Meanwhile, the vendees sold the suit land to Amir-ur-Ramzan, predecessor-in-interest of Mst. Parveen Ramzan etc., respondents Nos.1 to 5, in recognition of his superior pre-emptive right, and as such he was also impleaded as a defendant in the pre-emption suit. The suit was contested by the parties.
3. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 18-4-1969, on the ground that since Amir-ur-Remzan had a superior right of pre-emption equal to the right of the plaintiff so the petitioner had no case.
4. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide judgment and decree, dated 5-1-1971 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the pre-emption suit in favour of Muhammad Amin Khan petitioner on payment of Rs,20,000.
5. Feeling aggrieved, Amir-ur-Ramzan respondent filed R.S.A. No,10 of 1971 in the High Court, which was accepted, vide judgment dated 14-4-1998, as a result whereof judgment and decree of the learned District Judge was set aside and that of the Senior Civil Judge dated 18-4-1969 was restored. Hence, this petition.
6. It is contended that the learned High Court erred in holding that since the sale in favour of Amir- ur-Ramzan respondent was within the period of limitation, so the petitioner could not claim superior right of pre-emption qua him. It is further stated that the sale would be complete when the mutation of sale is attested and not before as the mutations were attested on 20-2-1968, therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner was within time.
' Conversely, the case of Muhammad Amin Khan petitioner before the High Court was that as the mutations of sale of the suit land in favour of Amir-ur-Ramzan had been attested after one year of the original sale in favour of Sh. Ahmad Hassan and others on 20-2-1968, it could not be treated as a re-sale in recognition of his superior pre-emptive right which could defeat the right of the pre- emptor.
7. The original sale in favour of Sh. Ahmad Hassan and others had taken place on 27-1-1967, while re-sale in favour of Amir-ur-Ramzan took place on 20-2-1968 when the mutation was sanctioned.
In this way Amir-ur-Ramzan had also become an owner in the village possessing equal right of pre-emption qua Muhammad Amin Khan petitioner.
' According to the learned Judge in Chambers, this fact was not only established from the report of the Patwari, but also from the orders of the Revenue Officer dated 20-1-1968 and 25-1-1968. The postponement of the sanctioning of the mutation till 20-2-1998 would not adversely affect his position, for, the sale was complete within the meaning of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on 20-1-1968/ 25-1-1968, as observed in Jangi v. Jhania and others (PLD 1961 (W.P.) Baghdad- ul-Jadid, 34), wherein it was held as under:-- "When a mutation is sanctioned with regard to sale of land, it is either on the basis of an oral sale or sale by a deed, and I am clear in my mind that as far as the sale goes, it shall be deemed to have been completed on the day on which it was effected and not on the date on which mutation in the Revenue Records was sanctioned about it.
The same position was reiterated in Noor Muhammad v. Ahmad through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 1997 SC 371). Since the sale in favour of Amir-urRamzan respondent in recognition of his superior right of pre-emtpion had taken place within one year from the date of the original sale, the petitioner could not claim any superior right of pre-emption against him, as he had also become owner in the village.
8. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge in Chambers had rightly non-suited the petitioner and restored the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1969 passed by the learned Civil Court in favour of Amir-ur-Ramzan respondent. In the result, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed, accordingly.