' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.---This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-1-1989.
2. Muhammad Ibrahim and five others purchased land measuring 94 Kanals situate in Basti Dad, Tehsil Shujabad, District Multan, as per registered sale-deed dated 30-12-1978 for a consideration of Rs,80,000. Khaaraiti and Fateh Muhammad, the sons of Haji Allah Diya vendor, filed a suit claiming superior right of pre-emption on account of their relationship with the vendor. The suit was originally filed against Muhammad Ibrahim and four others who filed an application on 18-5- 1980 for the dismissal of the suit as the respondents had failed to implead Muhammad Yaqoob, one of the vendeRs, The respondents promptly made an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading Muhammad Yaqub as a party to the suit and the ground taken for not impleading Muhammad Yaqoob in the original suit was that his name was not mentioned in the certified copy of the sale-deed issued to the responents. The trial Court after hearing the parties accepted the application moved by the respondents and allowed them to implead Muhammad Yaqoob as party while the application submitted by the appellants was dismissed as per order dated 8-11-1980. The appellants assailed this order through a revision petition before the District Judge, Multan, who dismissed the same on 18-1-1981. Thereafter, the suit was contested and on submission of the written statement, the trial Court framed the following twelve issues: "(1) Whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was wrong?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs were estopped to bring this suit?
(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(4) Whether the suit is for partial pre-emption?
(5) Whether the description of the suit property is incorrect?
(6) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
(7) Whether the sale is hit by MLR 115?
(8) Whether the plaintiffs have got superior right?
(9) Whether the sale price of Rs,80,000 was fixed in fact and paid in good faith?
(10) What was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale?
(11) Whether the defendants had made any improvements upon the suit land, if so, to what extent and amount?
(12) Relief."
3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the suit filed by the respondents was decreed on 7-3-1985. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan, who reversed the findings of the trial Court on issues 2 and 3 and thus, accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 5-3-1987.
4. The above judgment was impugned by the respondents in the High Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 22-1-1989, whereby the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was set aside and that of the trial Court restored with costs throughout and hence the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the parties heard and the record perused. Here before us the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the trial Court and the High Court on issues 2, 7 and 8 only.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants on these issues in the light of the evidence on the record and we are of the view that the appellants have not been able to make out any case. On the question of estoppel (issue No,2), the evidence produced by the appellants at the trial is not only inconsistent as to the presence of the pre-emptors at the time of the sale but also contradictory as to the payment of the sale consideration. There is also no evidence as to the participation of the respondents at the time of the sale in that none of them had signed the document of the agreement to sell or for the matter of that the sale-deed relinquishing their right of pre-emption in favour of the appellants.
7. As to the question being hit by M.L.R.115 (issue No,7), the perusal of the judgments of the Courts below shows that this was not at all pressed seriously before them. Though in the written statement the appellants did allege that they were in possession of the suit land as tenants but then no evidence worth the name was brought on the record to establish their tenancy over the suit land.
So far as the question of superior right of pre-emption of the respondents (issue No,8) is concerned, the sale was pre-empted by the respondents as the sons of the vendor. This position has not only been admitted by the appellants in para.1 of their written statement but at the trial all the witnesses produced by the appellants have admitted that the respondents are the real sons of Haji Allah Diya vendor.
8. The view that we take in. The matter is that the appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs.