BASHIR AHMAD Versus FATEH SHAH
This Regular Second Appeal arises from the judgment/decree dated 2-2-1978 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, the whereby appellants vendee first appeal was dismissed.
2. It was a suit for pre-emption which is being contested before this Court only on the point of limitation. The sale was initially entered in the register of mutstion on 20-4-1964, was attested on 28-4-1964 while the suit was filed on 26 ants-vendee's contention was that they -had been delivered possession of ' under the sale on 20-4-1964 and counting the limitation from this date the suit Filed on 26-4-1965 was barred by time. The two Courts below repelled this contention holding that the appellants possession, if at all, for a long period and that it could not be related to the sale itself. The entry in Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.1 showing the appellants possession was found have been based upon previous entries appearing for a long period in the record and, therefore it was not a new event on their part to enter upon the land under the, salt, so as to serve as notice to prospective pre -emptors. This proposition has not been much contested, nor even it could Possibly he because the fact remains that such an entry was noticed being recorded for a long time before the sale. It could not help the appellants and the view taken by the Courts below is not open to any exception.
3. An attempt was made through another entry Exh.P.8 to show that the possession was a new event coinciding with the sale but the diagonal indicating the change of possession in the Khasra Girdawari was found to have been mutilated and was suspect. This impression was not dispelled by producing any other evidence. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for the appellants tried to canvass that the Patwari s statement in that context was not properly read and appreciated. The impugned judgment shows that it had been duly considerer. His explanation that suspect entry speaks for itself and all the more when it appears for the first time coinciding with the dispute sale. The plea of the appellants was not established and since it was a finding of fact, it could not be upset in the second appeal.
4. Counsel for both the parties have been heard on merits, No other point was urged to support the appeal. It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H/B-63/L Appeal dismissed.