SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- Land measuring 18 kanals 5 marlas. Was purchased by Muhammad Akram and three others, petitioners, herein, vide Mutation No. 725, dated 31.5.1993. Ali Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest' of respondents, filed a suit to pre-empt the sale on the ground of being co-sharer in khata. It was claimed that the pre-emptor acquired knowledge of sale on 10.6.1993, at his Bethak. Through Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Yasin and Habib Ullah who made Talb-e-Muwathibat and thereafter approached the petitioners, it was alleged that Talb-e-Ishhad was made which was followed by registered notice. The suit was resisted on the grounds amongst other, that the same was barred by time and that requisite talbs were not made.
It was claimed that the land was purchased with the consent of the preemptor and that the possession was delivered on 4.3.1993.
2. After considering evidence, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment, dated 25.3.1997. Appeal filed by the respondents was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Samundari, vide judgment, dated 18.3.1998 and in result the suit was decreed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the requisite talbs were not proved, the evidence was not properly considered, land was purchased with the consent of the pre-emptor, possession was delivered before the sale and suit therefrom was not within time and that the notices were not properly served.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and argued that the evidence on record proved beyond doubt making of requisite talbs and that no public notice of alleged transfer of possession was ever issued. It was added that the respondent had no knowledge of the sale, the vendor was inimical to the pre-emptor and that the pre-emptor had already registered a criminal case against Muhammad Akbar who was convicted and, therefore, the question of his asking the pre-emptor to purchase the land could not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the notices were correctly addressed and posted in accordance with law and presumption would be about the due delivery to the addressee.
5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made and have been taken through the entire evidence of the two sides.
6. The case of respondent was that the sale was kept concealed, no notice was ever given under the pre-emption laws, he had no knowledge of the sale and that he acquired information of sale, on 10.6.1993, through Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Yasin and Habib Ullah when in their presence and in the presence of Muhammad Akram when, he announced his right, made jumping demand and thus satisfied the requirement of Talb-e-Muwathibat. It was claimed that after two days, the respondent, by making arrangement of funds, approached the vendees, alongwith Habib Ullah, Muhammad Nazir and Muhammad Akram, repeated' Talb- e-Muwathibat, demanded transfer of property on receipt of consideration and for the re-conveyance of the land but it was refused and, therefore, notice of Talb-e- Ishhad was sent immediately. To prove this, respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence. Habib Ullah, appeared as attorney of the respondent and stated that he had visited Patwari, alongwith Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Yasin on 10.6.1993 when he acquired knowledge of sale and all the three persons, went to the respondent, informed him about the sale who made jumping demand and expressed intention to enforce right of pre-emption in their presence and in the presence of Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Nazir. He also deposed that the vendees were approached on 12.6.1993 in the presence of Akhtar, Yasin etc. When Talb was repeated and demand for reconveyance; of the land was made which was followed by a notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. He was corroborated by Muhammad Akhtar, who appeared as PW-6 and reiterated similar facts. Muhammad Akram appeared as PW-5 and deposed about making of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. Clerk of the Advocate was produced as PW-4 who deposed about the preparation of notice by. Mr. Ghulam Bari, Advocate and about the postings thereof. He deposed that Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-4 were prepared under the instructions of the respondent which were duly posted on proper address. The posting and delivery of notices was further proved by PW-1, Muhammad Yousaf Post Man and PW-2 Muhammad Mukhtar Post Man. Thus sufficient evidence was produced, to establish making of three talbs. It is not the case of the petitioner that the notices were not properly addressed. Only objection to the notices was that the number of receipt was not mentioned on the acknowledgement due. This was immaterial. The sending of notices was duly established by the postal receipts which bear proper number and described proper address for due service and the same were proved by the then Post Men, who appeared in the witness box.
7. Main plea of the petitioner was that it should be presumed that the respondent had the knowledge of the mutation as notices are ordinarily issued by the Revenue Officer about the attestation of mutation and that Muhammad Akbar vendor had informed the per-emptor about the sale. Both these pleas were devoid of merit. It is admitted by Muhammad Akbar, vendor, that no notice was ever issued by the Tehsildar, about the transaction of mutation, to the pre-emptor. This being so, no inference could be drawn about the due knowledge of the pre-emptor regarding mutation, from the date of attestation, particularly when the Revenue . Officer had never issued notice and also, as the pre-emptor was never present at the time of mutation. The other defence was also not worthy of consideration as Muhammad Akbar admitted in his cross-examination that criminal cases were registered against him, at the instance of respondent/plaintiff and his father and in those two criminal cases, Muhammad Akbar was convicted. This being so, there is much substance in the submission of learned^counsel for the respondent that in such state of affairs, it could not be assumed that a person who was convicted at the instance of pre-emptor would approach the pre-emptor and inform him about the sale. The plea of passing of information of sale by Muhammad Akbar to the preemptor was, therefore, concocted one, improbable and un- believable and was rightly discarded by the learned Additional District Judge.
8. Learned Additional District Judge, after taking into consideration the facts noted supra and also the entire evidence on record, concluded that the requisite talbs were made and that the respondents had superior right of preemption. Findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court could not be shown to be suffering from any error of law or misreading of the evidence on record.
No ground is made out for interference.
9. Resultantly this revision petition fails which is accordingly dismissed.