TAJUL MULK vs Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for possession by pre-emption brought against the petitioner in respect of agricultural land sold via mutation. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptors, and the first appellate court as well as the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeals and revision petitions filed by the defendant vendee. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit in an oral sale begins from the date of the vendor's statement recorded in the mutation register or from the date of the formal attestation of the mutation. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action for a pre-emptor accrues upon the final attestation of the mutation, which completes the sale transaction, rather than upon the earlier recording of statements. The key principle laid down is that limitation for pre-emption in mutation cases runs from the date of attestation of the mutation, affirming that suits filed within one year thereof are within time. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
- When does the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit begin in the case of an oral sale recorded through mutation?
- Does the admission of sale consideration in a statement recorded prior to the attestation of a mutation constitute the completion of the sale transaction for the purpose of limitation?
ORDER
1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---The suit for possession by pre-emption, brought by Mst. Zaitoon Bibi w/o Rahmat Gut, of the land detailed in the plaint, sold in favour of Tajul Mulk petitioner on the basis of Mutation No,529 attested on 16-1-1976, was decreed in her favour and in favour of the rival preemptors; 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 pre-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 were 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.