AJMAL MIAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 18-4-1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court in Civil Revision No.2 of 1986 filed by the petitioners, dismissing the same and maintaining the judgment/decree dated 18-11-1985 passed by the District Judge, Mansehra, in Civil Appeals Nos.16/13 and 19/13 of 1984, filed against the two judgments and decrees dated 17-4-1984 passed by the Civil Judge, Mansehra, in Suit Nos.16/1 and 58/1 of 1983.
2. The brief facts are that one Mst.Hussan Jan, transferred 1/6th share of the suit land in favour of Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, sons of Mir Afzal i.e. In favour of the present petitioners against Mutation No.1861 attested on 11-3-1982 showing the above transaction as a sale for a consideration of Rs.19,000. The two present respondents filed two suits for pre- emption which were resisted. The learned Civil Judge by his judgment and decree dated 17-4-1984 dismissed the same by holding that the above transaction was a gift and not a sale. Against the above judgment and decree, the two respondents filed the aforesaid two appeals which were allowed by the learned District Judge by his aforementioned judgment and decree dated 18-11- 1985 and it was held that transaction was in fact a sale. Consequently, the respondents' above two suits were decreed. Against the above judgment and decree, the petitioners filed aforesaid civil revision which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge that the transaction was a sale and not a gift, is not sustainable. The above contention seems to be devoid of any force.
The learned District Judge, after perusal of the documentary and oral evidence, concluded that factually it was a sale transaction as indicated in the Revenue Record inter alia for the reason that D.W. Mst.Hussan Jan had appeared before the Tehsildar at the time of attestation of the mutation wherein transaction was mentioned as a sale for the amount of consideration of Rs.19,000. The second reason for recording the above finding given by the learned District Judge was that Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act prohibited the Court to hold that an alienation purporting to be a sale was not in fact a sale. The above findings have been concurred with by the High Court in the revision. No exception can be taken to the above finding which is supported by the evidence on record as well as on legal plane. The petition has no merits and therefore, leave is refused.