' KHALIL AHMAD, J.---Taj Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of respondent filed a suit for pre- emption on 12-2-1974 regarding land measuring 358 kanals 3 marlas situated in Chak No,163 G.B.
Gojra which was sold through mutation of sale No,327 dated 29-5-1973 before the AC/Collector.
The suit was dismissed by the learned Collector vide order dated 2-5-1979. He filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner which was accepted and the case was remanded.
Respondent after remand filed an application that he abandons the ground of tenancy and on the basis of "Yakjedi" want to proceed with the suit and as such the plaint was returned for filing the same before the Civil Court.
2. The suit was contested and was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8-7-1984. Petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26-6-1986 and the case was remanded to the learned Civil Judge. After the remand the case was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31-7-1988. Respondent filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10-7-1990. Respondent filed Civil Revision No,1679-90 which was accepted and the case was remanded to the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22-5-1992.
3. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-12-1993 decreed the suit of respondent. Petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7-2-1996. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit before the Civil Court was barred by time; that the respondent was estopped by his conduct to file suit as the pre-emptor was son of the vendee and the suit was mala fide and that he had no independent source of income and has relied on PLD 1984 SC 403 and PLD 1984 SC 415.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is a concurrent findings of fact by the court below against the petitioner; that respondent had a superior right of pre-emption; that issue No,6 which is pivotal has been decided against him and has relied on 1985 M LD 1432, 1988 M LD 450, 2006 CLC 1046 that concurrent findings of fact can not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction and has also relied on 2003 YLR 915, PLD 2007 SC 603, 2007 YLR 381 and 1998 SCM R 237.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Respondent in order of prove its case produced Abdul Aziz as P.W.1, Kamal Din as P.W.2 and Pir Din as P.W.3. Abdul Aziz also appeared as P.W.4 in rebuttal and produced documentary evidence Exh.P- 1 to Exh.P-4. The petitioner produced Allah Ditta as D.W. 1, Ali Muhammad as D.W. 2 and attorney of the petitioner appeared as D.W. 3 and produced documentary evidence Exh.D-1 to Exh.D-10.
8. There is no denial of the fact that respondent was the son of the vendee and as such had a superior right of pre-emption. So far the question of limitation is concerned, the impugned sale took place on 29-5-1973. Suit was filed before the civil court on 12-2-1974, before the expiry of one year as provided under the then Preemption Act, 1913. After the promulgation of Land Reforms Act, 1976, the suit before the Collector/A.C. Was filed on the ground of tenancy as one of the grounds of superior right of pre-emption. The plea of superior right of pre-emption on the basis of tenancy was withdrawn by him and as such the suit was to be tried on the remaining grounds of superior right of pre-emption i.e, "Yakjedi" and as such the plaint was returned to respondent for its presentation to the civil court which was duly presented on the same day when it was returned i.e, 16-4-1980. The respondent filed suit in time on the basis of tenancy as well as "Yakjedi". He withdrew his ground of tenancy and as such the Collector/A.C. Had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the plaint was returned to respondent for its presentation before the civil court who had jurisdiction to try the same.
9. So far the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent had no independent source of income and the suit for pre-emption was filed out of the sale proceeds of land in dispute that respondent was attorney of his father and that presence of respondent at the time of sale of land by his father constitutes waiver by respondent are concerned, waiver is to be proved through cogent and independent evidence and cannot be inferred. No independent evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove the same. Mere knowledge of sale or presence of respondent at the time of sale will not amount to waiver. It is in evidence that the sale-deed was reduced into writing but could not be presented for registration as it was intercepted by respondent and as such could not be registered on that date. This fact is sufficient to prove that the respondent had not waived his right of preemption. Mere fact that the respondent was son of vendor is not sufficient to hold that he was in collusion with him while filing suit for pre-emption or he pre-empted the sale for the benefit of a person other than himself.
10. The courts below after taking into consideration the evidence available on record rightly decreed the suit of respondent which was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge.
11. Leaned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality/infirmity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees of learned courts below warranting interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. The same are upheld and this petition is dismissed.