ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This appeal by leave of this Court arises from the judgment, dated 13- 6-1984 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. The land sold to the respondents was pre-empted by the appellant on the ground of his being owner of the land in the village and thus had a superior right of pre-emption over the respondents.
This was contested by the respondents on various grounds and also alleged that they had obtained land measuring 40 kanals in the revenue estate of village Thakar Singhwala by exchange from one Muhammad Hassan to whom they had given their land situate in village Shah Yakka through exchange deeds, dated 25-1-1968 and 29-1-1968, mutations in respect of which were attested on 15-2-1968 and 16-2-1968. In the replication the appellant alleged that mutations in respect of the alleged exchange were in fact attested after the filing of the suit by him but the same were ante-dated with the connivance of the Revenue Officer. The trial Court as per the pleadings of the parties recorded evidence produced in the case and decreed the suit of the appellant on 19-11-1977. This was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal on appeal filed by the respondents vide judgment; dated 24-10-1979. On second appeal to the High Court, the respondents succeeded, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were set aside and the suit of the appellant was dismissed through the impugned judgment.
3. Leave to appeal in this case was granted to consider whether the High Court was justified to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in the second appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. The only issue which is presently relevant is issue No.6 which pertains to the superior right of pre-emption of the appellant over the respondents. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence of the parties on this issue came to the conclusion that the mutations of exchange were sanctioned after the institution of the suit but with pre dated entries. It, therefore, decided this issue in favour of the appellant and decreed his suit. Same was the view of the learned first appellate Court. The High Court in second appeal differed with the findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below and thus dismissed the suit of the appellant. As the case stands, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge in his chambers was fully justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the two Courts with regard to the superior right of pre--emption of the appellant because the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence produced by the parties correctly. The execution of the exchange deeds Exh.D.5 and Exh.D.6 has been admitted by one Bahadur who had appeared for the appellant as P.W.9, but his evidence has been ignored by the learned trial and appellate Courts. Both these deeds were executed on 25-1-1968 and were attested by Muhammad Zakriya, the then Tehsildar Dipalpur on 15-2-1968 and 16-2-1968. Another important documentary piece of evidence which has not been taken note of by the learned trial and the first appellate Courts is Exh.D.3, copy of the report of Patwari Roznamcha Waqiati in respect of land of village Shah Yakka whereby the respondent gave land to Muhammad Hassan in exchange of his land in village Thakar Singhwala. Besides the above the appellant himself appeared as P.W.5 but was absolutely silent about the exchange mutations being ante-dated.
Further, the learned trial Court and the first appellate Courts have turned down the evidence of Muhammad Zakariyya (D.W.10), Muhammad Rafique Goraya (D.W.13) and Pirzada Khalid Majid (D.W.15) who had attested the exchange deeds and mutations in their official capacity as Magistrate, Tehsildar and Naib--Tehsildar, on very primary grounds. On the other hand, the appellant's case was based on oral evidence and was scanty and could hardly be relied upon.
5. The view that we take in this appeal is that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not need interference. This appeal is therefore dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.