CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---This civil revision has been directed against judgment and decree dated 12- 5-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the judgment and decree dated 25-2-1999 whereby the suit of the respondents for preemption was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case scanned from the record are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a pre- emption suit on 1-3-1997 regarding the land, fully described in the plaint. The petitioner-defendant took plea that he had purchased the disputed property from Phul Muhammad, real brother of the respondents in October, 1995, agreement was executed and possession was also delivered to the petitioner. It was also alleged by the petitioner that since the property in question was under mortgage, the Mutation No,1195 was sanctioned on . 31-12-1996 after redemption of the mortgage, therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs had no cause of action.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the issues were settled. After recording oral as 'well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 25-2-1999. The appeal preferred there against by the petitioner was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below are perverse, arbitrary, illegal and against the law and facts. He avers that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and committed glaring misreading of the same. Learned counsel points out that in the cross-examination, P.W.5 Hameedullah has categorically admitted that the respondents-plaintiffs had pronounced 'shufa' after three days, therefore, there was no jumping statement by the preemptors as required under the law. There are also material contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Learned counsel avers that when all the brothers (respondents and the vendor) are living in the same locality, it could not be believed that they had no knowledge of the sale of the disputed land, therefore, both the learned lower courts fell in error while passing the impugned judgments which cannot sustain in the eye of law. He prays that the civil revision in hand be accepted, the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs be dismissed.
5. On the - contrary, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this civil revision and fully supports the judgments and decrees of the learned lower courts. There' are, concurrent findings of fact by two courts below against the petitioner. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to P. W.5, the respondents-plaintiffs pronounced 'shufa' after three days has been fully considered and addressed in para 11 of judgment of the learned trial court, therefore, there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. He asserts that the civil revision merits dismissal.
6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record also perused with their able assistance.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restrained himself to issues Nos.1 and 6 which relate to performance of talbs and knowledge of the sale to the respondents-plaintiffs which are crucial in this case.
8. As far as performance of Talb-iMaw athibat is concerned, P.W.5 Hameed during the examination-in-chief deposes that he came in the baithak of respondents on 16t2-1997 at 11 a.m.
And told that Phul. Muhammad has sold the suit. Property to Muhammad Bakhsh who stated that they will pre-empt the sale. Whereas during the cross-examination, P.W.5 Hameed states that he went to the baithak of the respondents at 10-00 a.m. And after saying 'salami, he told the respondents-plaintiffs about the disputed sale but the respondents pronounced 'shufa' after three days thereafter. This is glaring contradiction on the part of P.W.5 Hameed which is fatal to the case of the respondents-plaintiffs.
9. Apropos performance of Talb-eIshhad, P.W.1 Muhammad Anwar, Postman and P.W.2 Abdul Rehman were produced. P.W.1 categorically admits that acknowledge receipt neither contains address nor signatures nor name of recipient/petitioner. There is only thumb impression of the petitioner. Whereas P.W.2 Abdul Rehman Postmaster admitted that Exh. P2 does not bear signature of the issuer Bashir. This Court is of the considered view that where no name, signature or address of the recipient is mentioned on the acknowledgement receipt, it cannot be held that the requirement of notice Talb-e-Ishhad has been fulfilled.
10. Over and above, the respondents and vendor are real brothers and live in the same vicinity; therefore, it cannot be believed that they remained unaware about the sale transaction, especially when the possession of the disputed property was also delivered to the vendee. The preemption suit appears to be an afterthought. On the other hand, the vendee is a bona fide purchaser against consideration and without notice and he cannot be ousted in the circumstances of the case.
Respectful reliance is placed upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (2007 SCM R 1105) and Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others (PLD 2007 SC 302).
11. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered With in the constitutional jurisdiction, of this court is misconceived as this court has ample powers to interfere with the concurrent findings where there is misreading/non- appraisal of evidence is apparent on the face of the judgments. By taking not into consideration the statements of P.W.5 Hameed, who is informer, as well as P.W.1 Muhammad Anwar and P.W.2 Abdul Rehman, the employees of the post office, the learned lower courts have committed misreading which is sufficient to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
12. In a nutshell, the pre-emption is a weak right and until and unless all the requirements of law have been fulfilled by the pre-emptor, the bona fide purchaser cannot be ousted. In this case, the preemptors-respondents have miserably failed to perform the Talb-e-Mawathibat and the Talb- e-Ishhad as required under the law. It is also not convincing that the respondents who are real brothers of the vendor and live in the same vicinity, had no earlier knowledge of the sale transaction. The learned lower courts have committed misreading of evidence, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees cannot sustain in the eye of law. As a result, this civil revision is accepted, the judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below are set aside and the suit of the respondents is dismissed.