1989 PLP 1026 (SCMR)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated 5‑7‑1977 of the Lahore High Court in a pre‑emption suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but in appeal by the vendee it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. In second appeal, the High Court upheld the judgment of the Additional District Judge.

2. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants were able to establish their superior right. The sale was effected by one Rehmat who was the grandson of Fazal Din. The appellants based their right of pre‑emption on the assertion that they were collaterals of Rahmat, as they too were descendants in the paternal line of Fazal Din. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, they set down the pedigree‑table showing their relationship with Rahmat. The respondent in his written statement denied that the appellants were the collaterals of Rahmat.

3. To support their claim at the trial the appellants contended themselves by merely tendering a copy of the pedigree‑table. Relying entirely upon this document, the trial Court held that they had been able to prove their relationship with Rahmat and accordingly it held that the appellants had a superior right. In appeal the Additional District Judge took the view that there was no evidence to show that the said pedigree‑table pertained to the appellants; accordingly, he reversed the finding of the trial Court on this controversy. In second appeal the High Court agreed with the learned Additional District Judge and affirmed his finding.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we are not persuaded that the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Additional District Judge suffer from any infirmity. There is no evidence that the pedigree- table produced at the trial related to the appellants. One of the appellants appeared in the witness‑box. He did not even care to claim that he and the other pre‑emptors were in any way connected with Rahmat or that the pedigree‑table referred to his family. Had he made any such assertion, the respondent would have had an opportunity to cross‑examine him on this point. The pedigree‑table was merely tendered in evidence at the close of the appellants' evidence by their counsel. In the circumstances, the view taken the High Court and the Additional District Judge that there was nothing on the record to show that the pedigree‑table brought on record pertained to the appellants, was justified. We would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs. AA./M‑744/S Appeal dismissed.