' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J. -- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Mirpur dated 31.01.2009, through which the first appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
2. The gist of the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the present respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar filed a suit for pre-emption against the present appellant and proforma respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur regarding the land measuring 13 Marlas bearing Khewat No, 262/253 Khata No, 1085 situated at village Painda Tehsil and District Mirpur. It was stated in the suit that the proforma respondent Muhammad Siddique/vendor sold the said land to the present appellant/vendee through a sale-deed dated 20.07.2007 against a price of Rs, 15,000/-. The price money of the disputed land was endorsed as Rs, 50,000/- to avoid any pre-emption suit. It was further stated that the present respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar and the vendor are collateral and co-sharer in the Khewat and Khata of the disputed land, while the vendee had no such-like qualifications as compared to the respondent/plaintiff. It was prayed to issue a decree of declaration on the basis of right of prior purchase.
3. The defendants in the suit were summoned by the Trial Court who submitted written statement, stating therein that the appellant/vendee has purchased the land and declared the same as Waqf for graveyard. The respondent/plaintiff has got no cause of action. The other contents of the plaint were denied and it was prayed to dismiss the suit. Issues were framed in accordance with the version of the parties. The parties produced evidence on their behalf. After hearing the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar and against the , present appellant and proforma respondent. The respondent/plaintiff was ordered to deposit Rs, 54,020/- as a decretal amount within one month. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant/vendee preferred an appeal before District Judge, Mirpur. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, Mirpur dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur dated 14.12.2006 was upheld. Feeling dissatisfied, the present appellant has filed the instant second appeal before this Court.
4. Arguments were advanced the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Shaukat All Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that both the subordinate Courts have not recorded their findings in accordance with the evidence and provisions of law. The respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar was not a co-sharer in the Khewat of the disputed land at the time of filing his suit. The appellant has reserved the disputed land for the graveyard,, so the suit filed by the present respondent Ali Mghar was not maintainable. The learned counsel requested to accept the appeal and referred the following precedents in supports of his arguments: 1992 SCR 286 1998 SCR 296
5. While controverting the learned counsel for the appellant, Mirza Zaid-Ullah Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the real respondent Ali Asghar contended that the respondent/plaintiff has a right of prior purchase regarding the disputed land being collateral of the vendor and co-sharer in the Khewat and Khata of the disputed land, while the present appellant/vendee could not prove any of the qualifications to exercise his right of prior purchase. This fact has not been proved that the disputed land has been reserved for a graveyard. Both the subordinate Courts have decided the case in favour of the respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar and have recorded their findings concurrently. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the appeal.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record available and perused the precedents referred carefully and minutely. The record reveals that the respondent/plaintiff has produced the attested copies of the record-of-rights pertaining to the years 2000-01 Exh.PB and PC, the copy of periodical record Exh.PD and a copy of mutation No, 306 on record. The revenue record placed on record reflects that the respondent/plaintiff is a sharer in Khewat and Khata of the disputed land. All the witnesses produced by the respondent/plaintiff have corroborated this fact through their statements before the Court. The appellant/vendee took this version that the respondent/plaintiff was not a co-sharer in the Khewat of the disputed land at the time of execution of the sale-deed, so the suit was not maintainable. The respondent/plaintiff has appended a copy of mutation No, 306 which was attested on 14.05.2002. The reference of the said mutation has been mentioned in the record-of-rights pertaining to the years 2000-01. It is evident from the record that the sale-deed of the disputed land was executed and registered on 02.07.2002. The respondent/plaintiff filed his suit for pre-emption regarding the disputed land on 15.07.2002. These facts have not been rebutted at all. Meaning thereby that the respondent/plaintiff was co-sharer in the Khewat and Khata of the disputed land before execution of the sale-deed regarding the disputed land.
7. The present appellant/vendee could not place any documentary or oral evidence to show that he fulfills any of the requirements for having preference regarding purchase of the disputed land as compared to the respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar. The present appellant/vendee took this version as well that he has made Waqf of the disputed land and reserved that as graveyard for general public. The appellant could not prove this fact through any reliable documentary or oral evidence, even no Waqf nama has been placed on record by the present appellant. The price money of the disputed land was proved as Rs, 50,000/- in accordance with the version of the present appellant/vendee. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff did not press that the price money of the disputed land was Rs, 15,000/-.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, the respondent/plaintiff proved his version for having right of prior purchase regarding the disputed land on the basis of reliable legal footing. No rebuttal of the facts proved in favour of the respondent/plaintiff has been made by the present appellant/vendee at all. Both the subordinate Courts have opined through their findings concurrently and have decided the case in favour of the respondent/plaintiff Ali Asghar.. The findings recorded by both the learned subordinate Judges are based on sound and cogent reasons, which need no interference by this Court. So, the instant appeal stands, dismissed with no order as to the costs. Second .