JUDGMENTA.M. TIWANA J.- This R.S.A, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 5.11.1974, by which Ch. Abdul Majid, District Judge, Muzaffargarh, dismissed the appeal of Muhammad Aslam defendant/vendee (petitioner herein) Against the judgment and decree, dated 28.2.1973, whereby Mr. Ayub Hassan, Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, had decreed the pre-emption suit of Suhanra plaintiff/pre-emptor (respondent herein) in respect of a piece of land measuring 36 kanals 11 marlas for a sum of Rs. 1000/-
2. The pleadings of the parties had given rise to a number of issues but the contest between them before this court is confined only to issue No. 4 which is reproduced hereunder:- "4. Whether the pre-emptor have superior right of pre-emption quo the vendee? OPP
3. The respondent had claimed his superior right of pre-emption on the _ ground of his kinship with the vendor and in order to discharge the onus of proving this issue he had, besides appearing as his own witness, also examined Maulvi Ahmad Bakhsh and brought on the record the copy of pedegree table (Ex.P.8). He deposed that he was connected with Abdul Rehman vendor as collateral through Abdul Aziz, his grand-father. In the pedegree table (Ex.P.8) to persons were mentioned as Aziz Muhammad, one of them was nearer to Suhanra and the other remoter. The learned trial Judge held that Abdul Rehman vendor and Suhanra pre-emptor were related to each other through their commen ancestor Aziz Muhammad as this fact was apparent from the pedegreetable which was further corroborated by the oral evidence of Maulvi Ahmad Bakhsh (PW.3). So he answered the issue in affirmatice. The learned appellate court, before which matter was reagitated, was of the opinion that the vendor and the pre-emptor were the descendant of their common ancestor Aziz Muhammad and for that reason the pre-emptor had superior right of pre-emption as compared to that of the vendee who was altogether a stranger to the vendor. .4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the pedegreetable (Exh.P.8) ifc&iiame of the person whom the respondent claimed as his common ancestor was 'Aziz Muhammad' but in his own statement before the trial court he described his name as 'Abdul Aziz' and since there was good deal of difference between these to names, he had failed to prove that 'Abdul Aziz' was the same person who was entered in the pedegreetable as 'Aziz Muhammad'. In his view, the pegreetable, which carries statutory presumption of truth being the record of rights, is to be given preference over the oral evidence and unless the respondent or any of his witnesses explained that 'Aziz Muhammad' was also known as 'Abdul Aziz! The respondent could not succeed on the issue in hand. He contends that the learned trial Judge misread the evidence by saying that the fact of relationship between the vendor and the pre-emptor stood also corroborative by the oral evidence of Maulvi Ahmad Bakhsh (PW.3) because this witness did not utter a single word on this fact and the learned District Judge did not further elaborate this matter.
5. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that there was little difference between 'Aziz Muhammad' and 'Abdul Aziz' and the respondent had fairly succeeded in proving the fact that he was connected with the vendor through the common ancestor. He submits that in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below, this fact cannot be re-appraised by this court.
6. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge happened to misread the evidence to the extent he observed that the fact of relationship between the vendor and the preemptor also found corroboration from the statement of Maulvi Ahmad Bakhsh (PW.3), because he did not state anything in this regard. However, this misreading does not materialy affect the conclusion arrived at by him on this issue because the fmdings recorded by him could very well be based on the statement of the respondent which is supported by the entry of pedegreetable (Exh.P.8). It is true that there is some variation in the name of the common ancestor stated by the respondent and the one given in the pedegreetable but this variation is not material. In the name of 'Abdul Aziz' and 'Aziz Muhammad' the main ingredient or the main part is 'Aziz' which figures in the statement of the respondent as also in the pedegreerable. In my opinion, the respondent had succeeded in proving the fact that he was related to the vendor through the common ancester Abdul Aziz and Aziz Muhammad mentioned in the pedegreetable was the same person whom he described as Abdul Aziz, therefore, no fault can be found with the findings of the courts below on the issue under discussion and their findings are affirmed.
7. In view of the above there is no sunstance in the regular secoad appeal and the same is dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs throughout.