' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of a transaction of gift with the assertion that it was in fact a sale. The trial Court accepted their assertion and decreed the suit. On appeal by the petitioners the District Judge came to a contrary conclusion and held that the transaction was a gift and therefore not pre-emptible; accordingly, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. The respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge re-examined the evidence, set aside the finding of the learned District Judge And upheld that of the trial Court. Accordingly, he restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the question whether the transaction was one of gift or sale was one of fact and the High Court was not competent to interfere with the finding of the District Judge in revisional jurisdiction.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we do not think that a case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court has been made out. The learned District Judge omitted to note that the alleged donor was in no way connected with the petitioners, had a large family of his own to support and was owner of a very small holding. These circumstances had an important bearing on the main issue before the Court. The High Court was therefore justified in interfering with the finding of the learned District Judge. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.