2006 PLP 965 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.

The appellant, Muhammad Nawaz, claiming to have superior right of pre-emption filed suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent to pre-empt sale through registered sale-deed dated 21-3-2000 of the suit property. Knowledge of the transaction was pleaded to have been gained on 16-7-2000 through Tariq Mehmood and the consequent `Talb-i-Muwathibat' and `Talb-i-Ishhad' through notices dated 17-7-2000. The respondent filed the contesting written statement. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court and the evidence was recorded. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit through judgment and decree, dated 15-3-2003. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, through the impugned judgment and decree, dated 26-2-2004. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence has not only been misread but has also been ignored by the learned Courts below. He further contended that there are no major contradictions in the evidence of the appellant to disentitle him to a decree for possession through pre-emption. And that the learned Courts below wrongly inferred from the facts and evidence that the appellant had prior knowledge of the suit transaction.

3. The learned Courts below through the concurrent findings arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had the knowledge of the sale made through registered sale-deed, dated 21-3-2000 but failed to make timely `Talbs' in accordance with section 13 of the Pre-emption Act, A 1991. The learned Courts below through due, proper and threadbare analysis of the evidence (oral and documentary) recorded that the appellant's story of knowledge on 16-7-2000 of the sale transaction was not only unbelievable but also totally false. In this perspective the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to particularize and specify the evidence misread or ignored by the Courts below. The learned counsel at maximum was able to state that there was no evidence regarding construction carried out by the respondent on the suit-land after the sale transaction and that public notices published in the newspapers through Exh.D.2 and Exh.D.3 being local newspapers could not be made the basis of the appellants knowledge of the sale transaction. I am afraid these submissions are not adequate to displace the veracity of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below on the basis of due and proper analysis and appreciation of evidence. It has not been denied by the respondent that the public notices through newspapers (one prior to the sale and the second immediately after the sale) were not published in the said newspapers. It is not relevant for the case of the appellant that the advertisement was published in the local newspapers (Exh.D.2 and Exh.D.3) for the simple reason that the appellant also resides in the same area and claims pre-emption on the basis of adjoining land etc. He thus, cannot be presumed not to have knowledge of these public notices painstakingly issued by the respondent regarding his intention to purchase the property and then of having purchased the suit-land. Furthermore the informer Tariq Mehmood admittedly had no business, concern or association with the area and was a non-resident and thus the appellant was unable to show that Tariq Mehmood son of Muhammad Ramzan had a reason to be in the area and share any information regarding the sale transaction with the appellant. The learned Courts below came to this conclusion that the construction over the suit property was raised immediately after the registered sale-deed and disbelieved the appellant that he had no knowledge of the construction made on the suit-land which adjourned that of the appellant who took more than 3-1/2 months to claim knowledge on 16-7-2000 of the transaction in question.

4. Under these circumstances there is no justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. Furthermore no misreading or non-reading of evidence or excess of any authority has been shown. This R.S.A. is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1263/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.