MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J. -- The petitioners call in question the legality of judgment dated 19.4.2001 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby their second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below has been dismissed.
2. This petition has arisen from pre-emption suit. The petitioners are the vendees who defended the suit filed by the respondents to pre-empt the sale made in their favour on the ground of co-shareship and collateralship. Learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that the respondents-pre-emptor were admittedly the co-sharers in the khata on which the land is situated and they were also the collaterals of the vendees but however, they assailed the findings of the Courts below only on issue No. 4 pertaining to limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his plea as regards limitation stated that sale of the land in dispute took place on 1956 about which the petitioners filed a suit against the vendees for declaration and permanent injunction that they were the owners thereof and the said vendees should be restrained from interfering in their possession. This suit was filed on 26.11.1969 and the same was decreed on the basis of consent on 21.2.1970. The mutation on the basis of this consent decree was sanctioned in the revenue papers on 26.12.1979 and the suit from which this petition has arisen to pre-empt the said sale was filed on 24.12.1980.
3. As held by the Courts below learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that the and was jointly owned by the vendees in the joined Khata alongwith others, therefore, it was not separable for the delivery of exclusive possession to the vendees. This being the case, under Section 30 of the old Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, the period of limitation was to star'- from the date of sanction of mutation as delivery of possession of a sold portion of the land being situated in joint khata was not possible therefore, it was rightly held that the same filed on 24.12.1980 was well within limitation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while faced with this situation, tried to argue that no compensation has been granted to the petitioners for improvements made over the land and issue No. 8 framed on the said subject had been wrongly decided.
5. Learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment expressly held that before him, only issue No. 4 regarding limitation was pressed and argued against which no averment had' been made in 'the present petition that any other point was also argued inclusive of the plea of award of compensation on account of improvements, therefore, we are not disposed to allow the petitioners to raise this plea at this stage.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment does not suffer- from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no force, which is accordingly dismissed and .