Find a Lawyer

Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)

‑‑ S. 30 (1) ‑ Pre‑emption suit against tenant‑Limitation Physical possession of land sold given on 11th August, 1971‑Vendee already in possession of land as tenant‑On 24th August, 1971, proceedings in mutation adjourned for verification of 'Girdawar on 24th August, 197I approved by Revenue Officer on 12th September, 1971,‑Held, vendee's possession being not under sale, limitation runs from date of attestation of mutation‑Held further, in circumstances, suit filed by pre‑emptor on 12th Septem ber, 1972 well within time‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 30.

Niaz Ahmad Bokhari for Petitioner.

This civil revision arises from the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, II‑Muzaffargarh, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kot Adu, decreeing the suit for possession through pre‑emption filed by Bashir Ahmad respon dent No. 1 against Piara Khan petitioner.

2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that Piara Khan, petitioner herein, had purchased land measuring 39 Kanals from Muhammad Hasan through mutation No. 3550. Bashir Ahmad respondent No. I and Iqbal Ahmad Khan filed suits for possession through pre . emption as rival pre‑emptors which were consolidated by the learned trial Court. Piara Khan petitioner contested the suits by raising preliminary objections and denying the averments of the plaints. On the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :‑

On issues N os. 1, 2 and 3, the trial Court held that the suit of Bashir Ahmed ‑respondent No. I was not under valued for the purpose of jurisdic tion and court‑fee, whereas, the suit of lqbal Ahmad Khan; being under valued was barred by time. Issue No. 4 was decided against Iqbal Ahmad Khan, the rival Pre‑emptor, issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff, on Issue No. 6, the trial Court held that both the rival pre‑emptors have superior rights of pre‑emption qua Piara Khan petitioner/ vendee, on issues No 7 and 8,. the trial Court held that the property was sold for Rs. 15,000 which was fixed in good faith and was actually paid by the vendee to the vendor‑Issues Nos. 9 and 10 were decided against the defendant, on issue No. 11, the trial Court decreed the suit for possession by pre‑emption in favour of Bashir Ahmad respondent No. 1 subject to his payment .of Its. 15,000 as sale price of the land.

3. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree Piara Khan petitioner vendee and lqbal Ahmad Khan rival Pre‑emptor filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge. Piara Khan petitioner challenged the findings on issue No. 6 alone while Iqbal Ahmad Khan, rival pre‑emptor, challenged the findings of the trial Court on Issues. Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The learned Additional District Judge, however, endorsed the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and dismissed both be appeals on 8th November, 1982. Hence this revision by Piara Khan petitioner against Bashir Ahmad respondent No. 1 and the learned Additional District Judge Muzaffargarh. Respondent No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the physical pos session of the land was delivered to Piara Khan petitioner on 11th August, 1971 when mutation No. 3550 was got entered by Muhammad Hassan vendor and that the statements of Muhammad Hassan vendor and Piars Khan petitioner/vendee,.: wherein they admitted the sale the payment of the sale price and the delivery of possession, was attested by the Revenue Officer can 24th August, 1971, therefore the suit for possession through pre‑emption, which was filed on 12th September, 1972, i.e. after one year of the date of physical possession and the attraction of the statements, was obviously barred by time.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel with care. As far his plea that since the physical possession was given on 11th August, 1971 the limitation would run from that day the learned counsel hash admitted before me that Piara Khan petitioner vendee was in possession of the land as at tenant before the sale. It is, thus, clear that the possession of Piara Khan, if any, being not under .the sale, the limitation would run from the date of the attestation of the mutation, within the meaning of section 30 of the Limitation Act. Going through mutation No. 3550, I final that the order dated 24th August, 1971 reads as follows :‑

The barb reading of these proceedings makes it clear that the further proceedings in the mutation weee adjourned for this verification of Girda war'. The mutation was again placed before the Revenue Officer on 12^th September, 971 when was approved in the Register of Mutations maintained under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. In these circum stances, I am of the opinion that for the purpose of limitation within the meaning of section 31‑1 of the Limitation Act, the mutation No. 3550 was attested ors 12th September, 1971 and not ore 24th August, 1371 and as such the suit filed by Bashir Ahmad on 12th September: 1972 was well within time.

6. For what has beets stated alcove there is no force in the contentions raised by the 18Yarnwd counsel. No. other point leas been agitated before me. This revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

K.M.A. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.