Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 15

Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--distinguished. Petition allowed. ---- S. 15 --- Preferential right of pre-emption --- Plaintiff, in order to succeed must retain his preferential right at three stages, namely, at the date of the sale, at the date of the suit and at the date of the decree --- Plaintiff who was co sharer of land in question at the time of sale but had lost his right of pre emption as a result of the consolidation of holdings and was not a co-owner of the new land at the time of the suit as also at the time of the date of the decree was not entitled to pre-empt the sale. Qaim Din v.. Said Ahmad and another PLD 1967 Lah. 1171 Malhi Khan v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1991 SC 824; Qaim Din v. Said Ahmad and another PLD 1967 Iah. 1171 and 32 IC 120 reE Iftikhar Ahmad Dar and Ahmad Din Farooq for Appellants. Masood Mirza for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th April, 1993. JUDGMENT The facts leading to this second appeal by the vendee defendants in a pre-emption suit are as follows. The land in suit measures 7 Kanals 19 Marlas; it was 5/16 share of land measuring 25 Kanals 9 Marlas comprising Khewat No. 48 according to the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61. The vendors Mst. Jantay and Mst. Begum. sold it by means of a   mutation attested on 6-8-1964. The plaintiff Ismail, now respondent, instituted this suit to pre-empt the sale on 29-7-1965 on two grounds; (i) that he was a co-sharer in the land in suit and (ii) that he was a collateral of the vendors. It is common ground between the parties that before the institution of the suit there had been consolidation of holdings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, with the result that a new land was allotted in lieu of the land subject-matter of the sale mutation. It was found that the plaintiff was a collateral of Mst. Begum vendor but was not a collateral of the other vendor Mst. Jantay and that the transaction 'in question was indivisible. It was found also that the plaintiff was not a co-owner in the Khata of the new land allotted to the vendee defendants in lieu of the land subject matter of the sale mutation. The learned Civil Judge…