' This judgment shall dispose of R.S.As. No 216/77 and 217/77, as similar questions of law and facts have arisen in these two cases. It shall, however, remain on the file of R.S.A., No. 216/77.
2. The facts of the subject-matter of R.S.A. No. 216/77 are, that Khan Muhammad respondent No. 1 brought suit No. 41/70, against the appellants and Rehmat Khan respondent No. 2, for possession of the land in dispute through exercise of rig ht of pre-emption. During its pendency, Rehmat Khan alienated his share in the suit land to appellant No.2. The vendees had purchased the land from one Sharif son of
3. Likewise, Khan Muhammad, filed another pre-emption suit bearing No.43/70, against the same set of vendees. Here the land had been purchased by the latter, from one Khusiia son of Habibullah.
In this case as well Rehmat Khan vendee sold away the land falling to his share, to Habibullah appellant No. 2 in R.S.A. No. 217/77.
4. In both the suits, the vendees objected to the pre-emptibility of the sale on the plea that the land was an evacuee property. An identical issue No.1 was framed in both the suits to cover this controversy. The learned Courts below referred to Haji Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347 wherein it has been held that only the sale of his right by a temporary allottee of land, is not pre-emptible and a suit list to pre-empt the sale of land by a permanent transferee and a confirmed allottee. On appraisal of the material on the record, the learned lower Courts found that it was not proved that the vendors were possessed of only such rights the sale whereof, was not amenable to pre-emptory rights of respondent No.
1. The concurrent finding on issue No. 1, in this behalf, was, recorded against the appellants and both the suits, decreed, against them. Their first appeal also failed. They have now come to this Court in second appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the appellants, only the finding on issue No.1 is assailed. However, on perusal of the record I find that in suit No. 41/70, there is a copy of Jamabandi (Exh. P. 2) relating to the suit land, in which in the column relating to ownership, the name of Sharif son of Habibullah, the vendor, has been mentioned. Similarly in the other suit in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 (Exh. P.2), the name of vendor i.e. Khushia son of Habibullah figures as owner of the land. These documents show that the vendors after paying the Government dues had become fullfledged owner of the suit land. In both the suits, the appellants did not produce any oral evidence on issue No.
1. In these circumstances, their learned counsel failed to dislodge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The judgment and decree under appeal, fully conform to the requirement of law and are accordingly upheld.
' There is no merit in both the appeals, which are dismissed with costs.