' The appellants' predecessor-in-interest Muhammad Anwar purchased the suit land from the Azhar son of Ghulam Hussain vide registered sale-deed, dated 22-7-1978 for a consideration of Rs,2,50,000. Respondent No,1 claiming to be a collateral of the vendor and his mother respondent No,2 claiming to be an owner in the estate filed a suit for possession of the suit land by pre- emption. The suit was resisted by the appellant's predecessor-in-interest who claimed that he had been a non-occupancy tenant in the suit land at the time of its sale. He also denied the superior right of pre-emption and also claimed to have made improvements in the suit land and to have incurred some expenses on the sale-deed. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 30-7-1985.
Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed an appeal which was heard by a learned District Judge, Khanewal who allowed the same and decreed the suit of the respondents subject to payment of Rs,2,50,000 as price, Rs,16,350 as expenses for sale and Rs,5,000 as compensation for improvements.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the learned District Judge has committed an error of law while upsetting the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No,6. Learned counsel states that the evidence has been misread. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have gone through the records of the trial Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. In order to prove issue No,6, respondent No,1 relied upon a pedigree-table Exhs.P.6 and P.7. According to this document Ghulam Hussain is son of Muhammad Shafi who is son of Ghulam Muhammad while Bashir Ahmad is son of Muhammad Ibrahim who is son of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.9 Bashir Ahmad is the attorney of respondent No,2 and next friend of respondent No, 1 . He states in examination-in-chief that the respondents are the collaterals of the vendor. In his cross- examination he explains that the name of the vendor's father is Ghulam Hussain who is son of Muhammad Shafi. The cross-examination was not taken any further. However, the vendor namely, Azhar Hussain stands linked with Ghulam Hussain son of Shafi mentioned in Exh.P.6. Nazir Ahmad, P.W.1 states in cross-examination that Ghulam Hussain and Bashir Ahmad are "{{URDU TEXT}} Muhammad P.W.3 also states that Ghulam Hussain and Bashir Ahmad are {{URDU TEXT}}Now Ghulam Hussain and Bashir Ahmed shown in Exh.P.6 are {{URDU TEXT}}.It is admitted that the vendor is the son of Ghulam Hussain while respondent No,2 is the son of Bashir Ahmad. The said respondent is, therefore, proved to be a collateral of the appellants. Besides I find that the appellants entered the witness-box as D.W.14 and did not at all deny the fact that respondent No,2 is a collateral of the vendor. On the other hand, in his cross-examination when confronted he expresses ignorance that Ghulam Hussain and Bashir Ahmad are collaterals. However, confirmed that they are relatives. There is, thus, no rebuttal of the said evidence which has been correctly believed by the learned District Judge.
4. Respondent No,1 in order to prove his ownership in the estate produced document Exh.P.4 which is a Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and does record her to be an owner in the estate. Learned counsel for the appellants objects that in order to succeed the said respondent ought to have proved that she was an owner in the estate on the date of sale, suit and the decree. I asked the learned counsel as to how was she supposed to prove that. The response of the learned counsel was that by producing the periodical record prepared after the year 1970-71. To my mind learned District Judge has very correctly drawn the inference that the periodical records were not prepared in the revenue estate in question after the year 1970-71. Exh.P.5 is the certified copy of the sale- deed, dated 22-7-1978 which document is also relied by the appellants as D.13 in document has of course been executed in the year 1978 but it has been so executed with reference to Jamabandi for the year 1970-71. A copy of the said document pertaining to the suit land has been produced as Exh.P.1. This document records Ashiq Hussain and Manzoor Hussain sons of Shafi to be the owners of the suit land. However, in the remarks column there is reference to the various sales made by the said owners. One such sale is through mutation No,137 attested on 28- 11-1973 in favour of Azhar Hussain etc., the vendors of the appellants. Then one finds the mention of mutation No,233 in favour of the appellants' predecessor-ininterest himself attested on 17-9-1978 qua the suit land. This copy of Exh.P.2 had been issued on 24-7-1979. There is no doubt in my mind that for some reasons periodical records were not prepared and the Patwari kept on making the entries in red ink regarding the various alienations in the remarks column of the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71. Exh.P.4 copy was issued also on 11-7-1979 and I do not find any entry there of any alienation made by respondent No,
1. The learned District Judge, therefore, correctly presumed that the ownership recorded in Exh.P.4 remains intact in favour of respondent No,1. It is by now well- settled that entries once made in the Revenue Record shall subsist till a new one is lawfully substituted for it. Reference may be made to the cases of Allah Dad v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1956 Lahore 245) and Azam Khan v. Azad Khan etc. (PLD 1986 Lahore 275).
5. There is no plea or evidence on record on behalf of the appellants to the effect that this entry at any time was lawfully changed after the year 1970-71 till the decision of the present suit. I, therefore, uphold the findings of the learned District Judge holding respondent No,1 to be an owner in the estate. This leaves us with the plea of the deceased appellant as to his non-occupancy tenant. I have examined the written statement present on the original record and one does get this impression that it was by way of an afterthought that the plea was hurriedly scribbled in reply to para.4 of the plaint. The plea was to the effect that the appellants' predecessor-in-interest was a non-occupancy tenant in the suit land at the time of sale and as such has the first right of preemption and that he will produce copy of Khasra Girdawari for ''Rabi 78" in support of his plea.
6. What the appellants' predecessor-ininterest produced is on the record as Exh.D.16. According to this document for Rabi, 78 the land stands in possession of one Karam Din tenant. However, in the same very column I e., column 10 of the document there is an undated entry in red ink pertaining to {{URDU TEXT}}. This shows cultivation of Dal Mash and Tobacco in the said land by the deceased appellant Muhammad Anwar. The observations of the learned District Judge are that the main crop being wheat during Rabi, 78 it was not possible to cultivate Tobacco which is sown in February-March and harvested in June. I also agree with the learned District Judge that the so- called {{URDU TEXT}} could have been possible only if it were to be possible to cultivate a crop upon a standing crop which of course is not possible. To my mind the attempt of the deceased appellant to defeat the suit of the respondents has failed. The said findings of the learned District Judge also find support from the statement of the appellant Muhammad Anwar who appeared as D.W.14. He has admitted in his cross-examination Karam Din as a blacksmith and that when he had purchased the land Karam Din was the tenant. This statement of the deceased appellant Muhammad Anwar completely sets at naught the said entry of {{URDU TEXT}} and the very basis of his plea that he was a tenant at the time of sale.
7. I, therefore, endorse the findings of the learned District Judge that the respondents not only proved their qualifications under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 but they also prove that they have a superior right of preemption as against the deceased appellant who failed to prove himself to be a tenant in the suit land at any time.
8. Then the learned counsel for the appellants tried to argue that the learned District Judge lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal. I am not prepared to entertain this argument for the simple reason that the respondents fixed the jurisdictional value in the plaint at Rs,4,052 being 30 times of the land revenue assessed. The learned trial Court upheld the said value while deciding issue No,2. The forum of appeal was thus, the learned District Judge who was competent to entertain the appeal and to decide it. Reference may be made to the case of Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum (PLD 1985 SC 393). No other point has been urged. This R.S.A. Is dismissed with costs.