PIR BAKHSH vs Mst. ANWAR MAI and 5 others

' On 20-11-1967 Mst. Anwar Mai, respondent No,1 filed suit for possession by pre-emption on the basis of collateral against Peer Bakhsh appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 in the Court of Civil Judge Kot Addu. The suit was resisted whereon 7 issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 31-10-1973. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Peer Bakhsh appellant filed appeal before the learned District Judge Muzaffargarh, who dismissed it on 7-2-1975, hence this second appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since before the decree for possession by pre- emption in favour of the plaintiff could be passed by the trial Court, the consolidation proceedings were initiated and the suit land was adjusted in that scheme in view of this changed situation, the trial Court should have first determined the identity of the property to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that both the Courts below were fully aware of the changed situation, as a result of consolidation proceedings. The learned Appellate Court observed that:-- "On the other side it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Khasra numbers of the land had been changed and the right of pre-emption was the right of substitution and the respondent was entitled to the new land given in consolidation in lieu of the land sold. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on PLD 1967 Lahore 1171 wherein it has been held 'by section 12, Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, in the new land, a land-owner shall have the same right which he had in the old land. Applying this section to the facts and the circumstances of the presed case it will be noticed that the old land (which had been purchased by the vendee) was liable to be taken away from him by the pre-emptor. Of that land, no doubt, the vendee was the owner for the time being, but his ownership was a contingent sort of ownership which could be substituted by that of the pre-emptor. On the plain wording of this statute therefore, a claim of pre- emption can be laid by the pre-emptor to the new land . Under these circumstances it was rightly held by the trial Court that the pre-emptor will follow the new suit property or the land allotted during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the original suit land."

In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Appellate Court, I feel there remains no doubt with regard to the identity of the property decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence by the Courts below. It is a case of concurrent findings of fact. I do not see any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgments of the Courts below.

' Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.