MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD

MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J. - --Petitioners Muhammad Siddique and others were defendants in a suit for pre-emption filed by Ghulam Muhammad predecessor of the respondents for pre-empting sale of the suit property situated in Mauza Kotla Gamun, Tehsil Rajanpur. District Dera Ghazi Khan.

The petitioners resisted the suit, on various grounds including right of Ghulam Muhammad to pre-empt the sale. After settlement of necessary issues and recording of evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Ghulam Muhammad on payment of Rs.6,000 which was determined to be the actual amount paid for the suit property. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were maintained in appeal. During hearing of the revision application in the High Court, counsel for pre-emptor Ghulam Muhammad offered to pay entire sale price of Rs:12,000 mentioned in the sale mutation besides Rs.4,000 as costs of improvement. The counsel for the vendees conceded superior right of pre emption of Ghulani Muhammad. Hence the controversy on merits between the parties was over.

2. On the question of limitation, the learned Judge in Chamber was of the view, that even if possession of the disputed land was taken prior to attestation of sale mutation, it could not be considered as possession under the sale, which was sine qua non for start of limitation and hence the two Courts below had rightly held that the suit filed by Ghulam Muhammad was not time-barred. After taking such view, the learned Judge in Chamber granted decree in favour of Ghulam Muhammad for possession of the suit land through pre-emption on payment of Rs.12,000 as pre-emption money plus Rs.4,000 as costs, within one month of the judgment.

3. Mr. Mahfuzul Haq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Ghulam Muhammad had filed the suit on 18-12-1968 in respect of the property the possession of which was obtained by the vendees 6/7 years prior thereto. This point has already been dealt with by the learned Judge in Chamber. In this respect it would be proper to go through the provisions contained in section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which reads as below:--

Section 30. Limitation .--In any case not provided for by Article 10 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, the period of limitation in a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under the provisions of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in Article 120 of the said Schedule, be one year--

(1) in the case of a sale of agricultural land or of village immovable property, from the date of the attestation (if any) of the sale by a Revenue Officer having jurisdiction in the register of mutations maintained under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, or

From the date on which the vendee takes under the sale physical possession of any part of such land or property; whichever date shall be earlier;

(2) in the case of a foreclosure of the right to redeem village immovable property,

(3) in the case of a sale of urban immovable property from the date on which the vendee takes under the sale physical possession of any part of the property.

Perusal of said provisions would show that the period of limitation would run from the time the possession of the property is delivered in pursuance of the sale. The period of limitation would not run from the date of possession if the same has been given before the sale,

4. For the foregoing reasons, we are not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and this petition is accordingly dismissed.

A.A./M-3017/S Leave refused