' 70 Kanals, 18 Marla's of land comprising Khawat No,959 of Village Thoha Mehram Khan, Tehsil Tala Gang, District Chakwal was purchased by the respondents vide Mutation No, 2639 attested on 30- 11-1994. On 22-3-1995, the petitioner filed a suit for possession of said land by pre-emption. His case was that the land has in fact been sold for 1,50,000 but a sum of Rs,2,92,000 has been fictitiously- entered as sale price. He claimed to have acquired the knowledge of the sale on 12-12-1994 and had made Talb-e-Muwathibat being a co-sharer in the suit-land, owning adjacent land and sharing amenities. He further asserted that he had served a notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on the respondents on 13-12-1994. The suit was resisted by the respondents. They took the plea that the land had been acquired by them under an arrangement and that possession was delivered to them on 19-3-1994 and i,e, when the real sale took place and that mutation was merely a formality.
The suit was stated to be barred by time. It was also asserted that the suit has been got filed mala fide as some of the parties to the said agreement dated 19-3-1994 had not transferred the land in favour of the respondents and the suit has been filed to pressurize the respondents. It was also categorically stated that the respondents are co-sharer in the suit-land. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court proceeded to decree the suit of the petitioners vide judgment and decree, dated 23-11-1999 subject to deposit of Rs,2,92,000 as price and Rs,30,000 as incidental charges. Against this judgment and decree the respondents filed first appeal while the petitioners filed cross objections. Both the matters were taken by Additional District Judge, Chakwal holding camp at Tala Gang who dismissed the cross objections but partly allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents inasmuch as he decreed the suit of the petitioners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the share in the suit-land on proportionate payment of said amount of Rs,3,22,000 (1-3) and dismissed the suit to the extent of 2/3rd share. This was done vide judgment dated 15-5-2001.
2. Ms. Zahida Amin, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents were not co-sharers in the suit-land inasmuch as they had transferred the land whereby they had acquired joint ownership in the said Khewat. According to the learned counsel this stand is admitted on record and is inherent in the very pleadings of the respondents. Learned counsel thus contends that the evidence on record has been misread by the learned Additional District Judge while allowing the first appeal and modifying the decree of the learned trial Court.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this Civil Revision with the assistance of the learned counsel. I have already referred to the pleadings of the parties in some detail. Admittedly, the suit-land is comprised in Khewat No,959. In remarks column there is a note that vide Mutation No,2529 attested on 6-3-1994, inter alia, the respondents-vendees (Afran Ali and Faiz Ali) purchased 72 shares out of total 407 shares purchased by the said co-vendees in land measuring 314 Kanlas, 7 Marlas from Khewat No,959 as also other land measuring 406 Kanals, 8 Marlas. Thus 72/407 share of the vendeesrespondents comes to about 128 Kanals in the entered land purchased. As per agreement Exh.P.1 (dated 19-3-1994) Farman Ali and Faiz Ali agreed to surrender 72 Kanals of land. This is from the total land purchased vide Mutation No,2529 and does not particularly refer to the said Khcwat No,959 or the other land.
4. I called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate from the record as to whether what facts stand laid therein for the said contention being raised by her. She is unable to point out any pleading or any evidence on record to support the said contention that the entire land stood transferred under said agreement. I then called upon the learned counsel to point out any evidence on record that the land in fact was transferred under the said agreement Exh.D.1. Again there is nothing on record in support of the said contention. There is yet another aspect of the matter even if said contention of the learned counsel is, by any stretch, taken to be correct and accepted then the plea of the respondents that the possession of the land in suit was delivered under the said sale arrangement on 9-3-1994 would also be liable to be accepted and if this is so then the entire suit of the petitioners would be liable to be dismissed under section 3 of the Limitation Act being barred by time.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have passed the decree in equal shares. According to the learned counsel this is the intent behind section 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has relied on a judgment of this Court in Feroze Khan and 3 others v. Ahmad Yar (1992 M LD 1570). Now this judgment is based in its turn on the case of Amir Hussain v. Rahim Bakhsh and others (ILR 1991 All. 466). This later judgment was rendered with reference to the Islamic Law as applied to a case where pre-emptors and vendees were found to be entitled to the suit-land. The rule laid down is that the land shall be shared by the parties equally and this would be on per capita basis. I find that section 20 of the said Act 1991 is in accord with the said judgment in its effect and as such the learned Additional District Judge has not committed any error in following the same and distributing the land on per capita basis between the vendees and the pre-emptors.
6. No other point has been urged. The C.R. Is without any force ID which is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.