' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Mst. Waheedi Begum and Sohanra petitioners want this Court to declare the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner (S)/Collector, D. G. Khan dated 3-5-1980, the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division dated 5-5-1981 and the order passed by the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 25-6-1981 in the revision to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that Mst. Waheedi Begum, Sohanra petitioners herein and Nabi Bakhsh respondent No, 2 purchased land measuring 67 kanals from Ghulam Muhammad and Maula Bakhsh for Rs, 25,000 through registered sale deed dated 14-7-1976 Bakhshoo-Respondent No, 1 filed a suit for possession through preemption before the learned Assistant Commissioner (S)/Collector D. G. Khan. The vendees/defendants raised preliminary objections and denied the averments made in the plaint. From pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action ? OPD
(2) Whether proper evaluation of the suit has been made for purposes of court-fee ? If not what is proper court-fee ? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff, by his acts and deeds is barred from filing this suit ? OPP
(4) Whether the transaction is Benami and defendant No, 3 has got no interest in the suit ? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of pre-emption ? OPP.
(6) Whether Rs, 25,000 were fixed and paid bona fide. If not then what is the market value of the suit land ? OPPs.
(7) Relief,
3. Issues Nos. 1 to 5 were decided against the defendants, on Issue No, 6 trial Court held that the sale price of the suit land was Rs, 25,000 and on issue No, 7 the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No, 1 for Rs, 25,000.
' Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the vendees/defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan on 5-5-1981. Revision filed by the vendees/defendants was also dismissed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, on 25-6-1981. Hence this constitutional petition.
' (Muhammad Munir Khan, J)
4. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned Courts below on Issues Nos. 3 and 4. He contends that the evidence adduced by the vendees/defendants on the issue has been misread by the learned Courts below. He argues that from the statements of Bakhshoo and Fazal Haq D. Ws., it stands proved that respondent No, 1/ plaintiff, by his act and deed was estopped from filing the suit and that the transaction was, in fact, a benami. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the material available before me. It is remarkable that the learned counsel has not placed on recored the copies of the statements of the witnesses. On my asking to point out misreading by the Court, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any material misreading affecting the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below.
5. I find that issues Nos. 3 and 4 are issues of facts. It is a case of concurrent finding. The learned Courts below were well within their authorities to arrive at the impugned conclusions.
6. For what has been stated above there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.