1999 PLP 2372 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN J.

This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption filed by Muhammad Ismail, respondent, which was 'decreed vide judgment, and decree, dated 19-10-1982 by learned Civil Judge, which decree was maintained by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment, dated 14-1-1985 but revision petition filed before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court against the said judgments was accepted vide judgment, dated 14-1-1985 and the case was remanded to the learned Additional District Judge as the appellate Court's judgment was falling short of legal requirement. On remand too, the appeal of the vendee was dismissed vide judgment of Additional District Judge, dated 3-12-1995 and Civil Revision Petition was also dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment, dated 7-10-1998.

2. The concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below was that Muhammad Ismail, pre-emptor/respondent has been able to establish his superior right of pre-emption on account of relationship with Nanak (vendor) son of Aroora, by producing oral evidence as well as the copy of pedigree-table Exh.P.4 and copy of Misl-e-Haqiat of the village Hamidpur Exh.P.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that documents Exh.P.4 and Exh.P5 fail to establish the relationship between Muhammad Ismail pre-emptor and Nanak vendor. According to learned counsel, pedigree-table Exh.P4, Muhammad Ismail is shown as son of Lal Din, son of Jewan Shah, son of Subah Shah, and Subah Shah and Taleh are not connected with common ancestor namely Neka Shah in the said pedigreetable, although in Misl-e-Haqiat Exh.P

5. Subah Shah and Taleh Shah are shown as sons of Neka Shah, caste Faqir. It is added that Nanak son of Aroora was Arain by caste whereas Misl-e-Haqiat Exh. P5 gives the caste as Faqir.

4. There is no merit in these submissions as Muhammad Ismail, plaintiff while appearing as P.W.2 was not asked any such question as to the caste. No question wile even asked with reference to the claimed relationship between Taleh Shah, the predecessor-in-interest of Nanak, and Subah Shah, the forefather of Muhammad Ismail. Even Hakam Din defendant No.2, while appearing as D.W.3 and who was one of the vendees, accepted that Muhammad Ismail was son of Lal Din, who in turn was son of Jewan Shah. He also did not specifically state anything about the claimed relationship in this examination-in-chief and in cross-examination he admitted that he does not know the name of the father of Nanak. The caste of Subah Shah and Taleh Shah in Pedigree-table Exh.P4 has been shown as Arain. Same is the caste of Muhammad Ismail. We have noted that on the question of relationship preponderance of evidence is in favour of the respondent/pre-emptor Muhammad Ismail. We, therefore, do not find any justification to substitute the concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the learned Courts below.

5. No question of law of public importance has been raised in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M-310/S Leave to appeal refused.