' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this second appeal the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18-10-2005 passed by the learned. Addl: District Judge, Burewala, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 27-6-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Burewala, whereby the suit for preemption filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of this case are that on 15-1-2001 the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit to pre-empt the sale of land in favour of defendants-respondents through mutation of exchange claiming to be of sale bearing No.614 attested on 20-9-2000. The written statement was filed and suit was contested. The parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the completion of trial vide judgment and decree dated 27-6-2003 suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. An appeal was preferred before the lower appellate Court, which also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 18-10-2005. Hence, this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there were minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses produced by the plaintiff/appellant and that the admission in cross-examination of delay of making Talb-e-Muwathibat by the plaintiff was not fatal enough to conclude that Talbe- Muwathibat has not been made in accordance with law, therefore, the findings on issue Talbs recorded by the courts below are not sustainable under the law.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and also gone through the record minutely.
5. I have noticed that in cross-examination the plaintiff who appeared as P.W.4 has stated that when he was informed about the sale, he inquired from the Informer that for how much consideration the property has been sold and after inquiring all the particulars he announced his intention to pre-empt the sale. He deposed that he was sitting under the "Neem Tree" when he was informed. The alleged Informer P.W.6 stated that when he informed the plaintiff about the sale, after inquiry the plaintiff pronounced his intention to pre-empt the sale. At one hand case of the plaintiff is that on 7-1-2001 he came to know about the sale, whereas in cross-examination he stated that it was summer season when he came to know about the sale. This contradiction has been noted by the learned trial Court extracting that the transaction of transfer of property was in the knowledge of plaintiff since the transfer of property as it was transferred in September, 2000.
Learned both the courts below have minutely scanned the evidence led by the parties and came to the right conclusion that the contradictions in the statement of. Plaintiff/appellant are fatal to his case. When there are fatal contradictions in the evidence of plaintiff to prove Talb-eMuwathibat, the findings of two courts B below are not exceptionable. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as 2010 M LD 934 (Moonda v. Fateh Muhammad and 2 others) and 2006 YLR 1153 (Muhammad Ilyas and 4 others v. Walayat Hussain)". Learned counsel for the appellant miserably failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. Consequently, I see no force in this appeal, same stands dismissed.