' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Bakht Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, together with two others, now no longer in the field, instituted a suit for pre-emption in respect of a transaction relating to transfer of agricultural land. The trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia on the ground that the transaction was one of exchange. Bakht All preferred an appeal before the District Judge. It was heard by an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the nature of the transaction. Bakht Ali filed a regular second appeal in the High Court but that too remained unsuccessful. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts that the transaction was not pre- emptible as it was not one of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that at one stage the vendee had agreed to the transaction being pre-empted provided he was paid the market price of the land; accordingly, an arbitrator was appointed who worked out the market price; even though, subsequently, the proceedings taken by the arbitrator were set aside, the fact that the vendee had no objection to the suit being decreed indicated that the transaction was one of sale and not of exchange.
3. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The willingness of the vendee to transfer the land to Bakht All on receipt of market price could well have been motivated by a desire to avoid litigation rather than an admission on his part that the transaction was one of sale. As the transaction in question has been found to be one of exchange after a proper appreciation of evidence, this petition is without any merit and is dismissed.