1. ' These are two connected second civil appeals. .Substantially, the question of law arising for determination in both the appeals is identical i,e, whether Mst. Sardar Begum appellant in Appeal No, 310 of 1974, and, respondent in Appeal No, 382 of 1970 was related to Mohabbat Khan and had preferential right of preemption. Facts in the appeals are a little variant.. First, I shall take up Civil Appeal No, 382 of 1970. In this appeal, Mohabbat Khan gave 17 kanals, 3 marlas of land in village Wattalian to Ghulam Rasool, and, his brother Fazal Hussain, in return for their land measuring 4 kanals, 19 marlas through exchange, vide Mutation No,698 attested on 24-2-1966. Mst. Sardar Begum (for short, appellant) claimed pre-emption in respect of this sale on the basis of relationship to Mohabbat Khan and described the transaction as a sale by him. To the suit, parties to the exchange were impleaded as defendants Nos.1 to 3. Pre-emption suit was resisted and material averments in the plaint including assertion of preferential right of pre-emption were controverted. The trial Court framed issues on the material points in dispute between the parties, recorded evidence produced by them and upon its review, decreed pre-emption suit in favour of the appellant on 4-11-1968 subject to her paying Rs,4,699.87 as market value of the land to the vendees, defendants Nos.2 and 3 in the pre-emption suit, till 4-1-1969. In default, preemption suit was to stand dismissed. It was held by the trial Court that appellant was related to Mohabbat Khan, both being descendants of one Bakhsh. Therefore, as his presumptive heir, she had a better right; that the transaction described as an exchange, in reality, was a sale; that market value of the land was Rs,4,699.87. Defendants 2 and 3, namely, Ghulam Rasool and Fazal Hussain preferred an appeal. It was dismissed on 14-3-1970 by the Judge below. Thereupon, further appeal was filed in this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 24-5-1971.
2. ' In R.S A. 310 of 1974, Mohabbat Khan sold 4 kanals, 6 marlas of land in village Wattalian to Ghulam Qadir vide deed of sale registered, on 19-12-1968 for an ostensible sale price of Rs,2,500. Later, Mutation No 786 was sanctioned on 8-1-1969 to give effect to the sale-deed in Revenue records.
3. Muhammad Rafique minor acting through his father Nadir Khan as his next friend, claimed preemption in respect of the above sale on the ground of being a co-owner in the land sold.
4. Appellant also claimed pre-emption in respect of this sale. On 29-1-1970, she obtained pre- emption decree. Consequently, she was impleaded as defendant No,2 in the pre-emption suit filed by Muhammad Rafique. On contest, the trial Court found that Muhammad Rafique was co-owner, whereas appellant had not proved her relationship to the vendor. In consequence, it decreed the suit in favour of Muhammad Rafique, pre-emptor on 31-5-1972, conditional upon payment of Rs,2,500 as sale price to the vendee-defendant before 30-6-1972, failing which the pre-emption suit was deemed to have been dismissed. Both, the vendee and the appellant (Mst. Sardar Begum), unavailingly preferred separate appeals but the judgment given in appeals was not different, as the appeals were dismissed on 18-5-1974. Against this judgment and decree, only appellant Mst. Sardar Begum has come up in second appeal. Rival pre-emptor and thereunder were imploded as respondents to the appeal. It was admitted to hearing on 12-11-1974.
5. ' As is evident from the facts enumerated above, only material question requiring determination in the appeals is about appellant's preferential right of pre-emption i,e, whether she was related to Mohabbat Khan, and, was progeny of Bakhsh like him. Above question being common to both the appeals, can more conveniently be dealt with in a single judgment, and that is what I propose to do. But before adverting to this pivotal question, it is necessary to mention about my order passed on 26-3-1988 in second Appeal No,382 of 1970, by which, the appeal file was sent to learned Judge below to take further evidence for purposes of clarifying existing omission of connecting links in pedigree-table Ext.D5. After taking additional material in the form of pedigree-tables on file, the file alongwith the report of the Judge below was again sent to this Court. It forms part of record now.
6. Furthermore, order passed on 26-3-1988 permitting taking of additional evidence shall be read as part of this judgment.
7. ' Having stated the facts and circumstances in which the appeals reached this Court, I shall now examine the evidence to ascertain whether the relationship set up by Mst. Saddar Begum was established on record and this is the only point which shall finally determine the fate of litigation in both the appeals. On question of relationship, oral evidence, besides being wholly meagre was unassisting. Self-serving statement of Mst. Saddar Begum (P.W.2) did not sufficiently connect her with Bakhsh claimed to be the common ancestor. Ghulam Rasool a co-vendee as D.W.2 denied that she was related to Mohabbat Khan . Muhammad Ramzan, Inspection Moharrar, Saddar Office Kanungo, Jhelum, on examination of original pedigree-table for the year 1880 deposed that it did not show that `Zamindar' was son of Bakhsh. In cross-examination, it was admitted by the witness that the pedigree-table for the year 1900 showed Mehndu and Zamindar as sons of Bakhsh but the connecting link on the pedigree existing on its two leaves was separated by distance of an inch in between and that the lines on two leaves did not meet. Pedigree-tables of Malikan Mauza Wattalian for 1939-40 Exts. P6, P7 recorded both Mehndu and Zamindar as sons of Bakhsh. Mst.
8. Sardar Begum is daughter of Nek Alam who is shown to be lineal descendant of Mehndu son of Bakhsh, whereas, Mohabbat vendor was son of Nanku who fell in the line of Zamindar. There is no doubt that if entries in pedigree-tables Exts. P6, P7 are correct and true, her relationship to the vendor is proved beyond dispute and she had clear preferential right of pre-emption. But genealogical table of Malikan Mauza Wattalian for the year 1860 and 1880 Exts. D4, D5 cast grave doubts upon the genuineness of the link connecting Zamindar with Bakhsh. Ext.D4 records Niamat as son of Zamindar but gave no indication about the name of his father. In an altogether separate column, Mehndu is shown to be son of Bakhsh son of Shero son of Neka. Niamatullah and Mehndu have been put in separate columns in Ext.D.4. In Ext.D5, though Mehndu and Zamindar had been placed in adjacent squares of the pedigree-table, yet there was no link connecting Zamindar with Bakhsh. ExtA1 copy of pedigree-table Mauza Wattalian for 1860 in regard to ancestry of Niamat Ullah and Mehndu was identical with Ext.D4. Copy of Misl-e-Haqiyat Mauza Wattalian for the year 1860-Ext.A2 recorded separately Mehndu son of Bakhsh and Niamat Ullah son of Zamindar at serial No,41 and 74 owning separate holdings of differing area. Ext.A3 is copy of pedigree-table Mauza Wattalian for the year 1880. Its entries are identical with Ext.D.5. In it, there is no connecting link between Zamindar and Bakhsh, though Mehndu and Zamindar are placed side by side in adjacent squares of the pedigree-table. Ext.A5, pedigree-table for the year 1900 in regard to the pedigree of Mehndu and Zarnindar existed on two separate leaves and there was a clear gap in the connecting links between Bakhsh and Zamindar. Additionally, `Zamindar' was placed five squares (Ghuries) away from Mehndu with Dadan son of Peer Bakhsh placed in between. Such an extraordinary course is not easily explainable. If Zamindar was son of Bakhsh, he could be placed beside Mehndu in the adjacent cloumn of Ext.A5. When the entries in pedigree-tables are read together with contents of Misl-e-Haqiyat for the year 1860 in their true perspective, it is clear that the line drawn on the pedigree-table, in Ext.P6 between Zamindar and Bakhsh showing the latter to be the father of the former was either a spurious and unauthorised act or an act of a mistaken hand. There are strong indications available from Exts. D4 and D5 that Niamat son of Zemaindar, and, Mehndu son of Bakhsh were of separate ancestry because if Mehndu and Zamindar were of one ancestry, they could be put together and not in separate columns as was done in Ext.D4. This fact is further re-inforced by contents of Ext.D5 which did not at all show Zamindar as son of Bakhsh and to an extent it was also supported by pedigree-table prepared for the year 1900 which did not indicate an unbroken link between Bakhsh and Zamindar. The gap in the connecting links was not altogether unmeaningful. It had its own significance to convey and could not be brushed aside lightly. Shajra Nasab or genealogical table is included in Record of Rights and Periodical Records in terms of section 39 (2), (d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. Rule 30 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 gave its form in Form III. Para 7.66 of the Land Records Manual deals with genealogical table and states that the orders in Appendix VIII to the Settlement Manual shall apply to the amended copy of shajra nasab. Para 290 of the Settlement Manual by Sir James M. Douie gave instructions for preparation of shajra nasab and its form is provided in Appendix VIII of the above Manual. Beneath the form of shajra nasab, it is stated, the Shajra nasab should be drawn on one continuous sheet, not on separate leaves--on strong paper, similar to that used for the khasra girdawari. For strength, one inch slips of thin cloth should be pasted on the back of the folds." When shajra nasabs Exts.P6, P7 are looked upon in the light of governing instructions, gap in connecting links gains prominence. Onus to prove that Mst. Sardar Begum was related to the vendor heavily laid upon her. It was for her to establish convincingly her relationship to the vendor. Any doubt existing in her evidence shall avail the vendee who was on the defensive and could not be dislodged unless his opponent proved her entitlement beyond dispute. Upon review of the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, it was sufficiently established that she had signally failed to establish her relationship to the vendor and, therefore, had no preferential right of pre-emption qua the vendees. Presumption arising in regard to later entries of pedigree-table was effectively rebutted not only by the entries in the earlier pedigree-tables but also by contents of Misl-e- Haqiyat, and, the oral evidence led at the trial. As for the connected appeal, apart from the pedigree-tables referred to above, some oral evidence was also led to refute appellant's relationship to Mohabbat Khan. It is of importance to observe that in this case, Mst. Sardar Begum did not appear to make statement for affirming her relationship to the vendor. Both the Courts found that she was not related to Mohabbat Khan. I think, the agreed findings on question of her relationship were neither faulty nor infirm and could not be upset in second appeal, moreso, when in Appeal No,382 of 1970, decided today, finding on relationship has been recorded against appellant Mst. Sardar Begum.
9. Having regard to the above, R.S.A. 382 of 1970 is allowed, impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and pre-emption suit brought by Mst. Sardar Begum is dismissed. In consequence, second appeal 310 of 1974 fails and is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.