TAJUL MULK vs Mst. ZAITOON BIBI And 3 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed revision petitions regarding a suit for possession by pre-emption. The petitioner (vendee) challenged the lower courts' decisions, arguing that the suit was time-barred. The petitioner contended that because the vendors had recorded statements in the mutation register acknowledging receipt of sale consideration and delivery of possession prior to the formal attestation of the mutation, the limitation period for the pre-emption suit should have commenced from the date of those statements rather than the date of attestation. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming the established legal position that the cause of action for a pre-emption suit in cases of sale through mutation accrues only upon the attestation of the mutation, which constitutes the final order completing the sale transaction. Consequently, the Court held that a suit filed within one year of the attestation of the mutation is within the period of limitation, regardless of earlier statements recorded in the mutation register. The petitions were dismissed.
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of statements recorded in the mutation register or from the date of the attestation of the mutation?
- Is the attestation of a mutation considered the final order of completion of a sale transaction for the purpose of calculating the limitation period in pre-emption suits?
ORDER
1. FAZAL IL.AHI KHAN, J: --The suit for possession by pre-emption, brought by Mst. Zaitoon Bibi w/o Rahmat Gul, of the land detailed in the plaint, sold in favour of Tajul Mulk petitioner on the basis of Mutation No.S29 attested on 16-1-1976, was decreed in her favour and in favour of the rival pre-- emptors; namely, Qazi Zainullah and others, in equal shares. The defendant/vendee's appeals against the judgment and decree were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Peshawar on 16-5- 1985.
2. Two revision petitions filed by the defendant's/vendee's against the judgments and decrees passed in appeal were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment dated 27-2-1993.
3. Leave to appeal is sought for against the judgment of the learned High Court.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale being oral the revenue officer recorded the statements of the vendors in the mutation register on 5-8-1971 in which they had accepted receipt of the sale consideration and delivery of possession to the vendees of the land under sale, therefore, the suit for pie-emption filed within a year of the attestation but beyond such statement was barred by time. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court Barkhurdar v.
5. Muhammad Razzaq PLD 1989 SC 749.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force. The question of period of limitation of a sale through mutation has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in a judgment in Gharib Shah and other v. Zarmar Gul, reported in PLD 1984 SC 188, wherein it has been clearly held that even if such statement is recorded prior to attestation of mutation and payment of sale consideration is admitted in such statement the cause of action will accrue to a pre-emptor on the attestation of mutation which is the final order of completion of the sale transaction. Such being the case the Courts below wire perfectly justified in holding the plaintiffs/respondents' suit for pre- emption, filed within one year of the attestation of mutation, as well within time. We, therefore, find no merit in these petitions. These are, therefore, dismissed.
7. A.A./T-95/S