' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment, dated 2-7-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in a civil revision arising out of a suit for pre-emption.
2. Leave was granted vide order, dated 25-11-1998 as under:---
(1) "This petition for leave to appeal arises out of suit of preemption filed by the respondents which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment, dated 15-12-1981 but on appeal decree of dismissal was set aside and suit was partly decreed as it was dismissed to the extent of 1/8th share of Mst. Jannat Bibi, one of the vendors vide judgment, dated 12-6-1984. The Civil Revision filed by the vendee/petitioner was dismissed vided impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
(2) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/vendee that Exh.P.3, the pedigree table produced at the trial as well as another pedigree table produced at the appellate stage which had not been formerly admitted into evidence, could not have been relied as both the documents fail to establish the claimed relationship and as such learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit in respect of other vendors as well.
(3) The question raised requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Execution of decree shall remain stayed pending decision of the appeal as already directed".
3. The relevant facts in the background are that appellant purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs,13,000. The respondents claiming superior right of pre-emption as collateral of vendors, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The suit was contested by the appellant and the learned trial Judge in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought by them on record, held that the respondents plaintiffs have common ancestors with the vendors except Mst. Jannat Bibi, one of the vendors of the joint property in the joint sale but dismissed the suit vide judgment, dated 15-11-1981 on the ground that the joint sale to the extent of Mst. Jannat Bibi in the property was not pre-emptable. In appeal preferred by the respondents against the dismissal of their suit learned District Judge, Jhang, vide judgment,dated 12-6-1984 held that with the exception of sale of land to the extent of 1/8th share of Mst. Jannat Bibi, the remaining sale was pre-emptable and decreed the suit accordingly. The respondents during pendency of appeal, moved an application, for bringing on record the additional evidence and placed on record pedigree table in addition to the pedigree table produced by them in the evidence before the trial Court. However, it is not clear from the judgment of Appellate Court in appeal whether the application in question was allowed or not but the reference of the pedigree table placed on the record of appeal is find mentioned in the judgment. The appellant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in appeal through a revision in the Lahore High Court and a learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the revision petition with the observation that the suit being not for partial pre-emption was rightly decreed except to the extent of the share of Mst. Jannat Bibi. The learned Judge also observed that the relationship of respondents plaintiffs with vendors was established through the pedigree table produced by the plaintiffs in evidence, before the trial Court and the pedigree table placed on record in appeal, was neither essential nor it improved the case of the pre-emptors.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the pedigree table produced by the respondents/plaintiffs in evidence in the trial Court and the pedigree table placed on record of the appeal belonged to different villages, therefore, no reliance could be placed on these document to establish the relationship between vendors and vendees and that the close scrutiny of these two pedigree-tables would show that the vendors were not Yakjaddies of the respondents/plaintiffs but unfortunately all the three Courts while misreading the evidence, have drawn a wrong conclusion.
5.. Learned counsel representing the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the appellant having not challenged the genuineness and authenticity of pedigree table produced in evidence in the trial Court at any stage, would be estopped to raise such an objection before this Court and added that the relationship of the vendors with plaintiffs/ respondents, was sufficiently proved through the oral evidence.
6. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their help, find that Allah Ditta, one of the plaintiffs, while appearing in witness-box has craimed that the plaintiffs were Yakjaddies of vendors and also gave detail of relationship. The appellant neither challenged the correctness of the statement of Allah Ditta in his cross-examination nor produced any evidence in rebuttal to show that vendors and plaintiffs were not Yakjaddies and thus the issue relating to the existence of relationship between the vendors and the preemptors as Yakjaddies would need no other proof. Murad Khan, one of the witness of appellant pre-emptor in his examination in chief has stated that pre-emptors and the vendors were co-sharers in the joint Khata. Learned counsel for the appellant when confronted to this state of affairs, he Submitted that the oral evidence was not sufficient to establish the relationship to claim the superior right of pre- emption. We are afraid, the appellant having not denied the relationship of the vendors and plaintiffs inter se in the written statement or either by challenging the statement of Allah Ditta in cross-examination or by bringing any evidence in rebuttal, has admitted the relationship of vendors and preemptors inter se as Yakjaddies and consequently, the superior right of pre- emption claimed by the respondent would established through the oral evidence without the pedigree-tables. The learned counsel has neither been able to show us any misreading or non reading of evidence nor has raised any other point in support of this appeal.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.