Copies of revenue record submitted on behalf of the appellants have been examined.
2. Appellants plea of superior right of pre-emption was based on their contentions that they were co-sharers in the joint Khata out of which the disputed land was sold and further that they were also co-owners of Chah Jaurianwala from which the aforementioned land was irrigated. In support of their contention that they were co-sharers in the joint Khata, reliance was placed on the statement of the Patwari who appeared as P. W. I in the trial Court, but his above statement was not supported by the entries in the Register of Haqdaran-i-Zamin, copies whereof were tendered in evidence by the appellants at the trial and have also now been submitted in this Court. Similarly, their contention that they were co-owners of Chah Jaurianwala, is not supported by the copy of Naqsha Haqooq Chahat of village Bhaini which was not produced at the trial, but has been placed on the record of this Court.
3. The concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellant had failed to prove that they had superior right of pre-emption is, therefore not open to question as it is based on proper appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties at the trial as also from the entries in the revenue record, copies whereof the appellants have placed on the record of this Court.
There is no force in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limlne. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.