' On 26-4-1975, Abid Hussain Shah, respondent, filed a suit for possession by pre-emption on the basis of being a collateral of the vendor and co-sharer, against Sycd Froze Bakht, petitioner, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat. The suit was resisted, whereon the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the suit was time-barred? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption? OPP
(3) Whether Rs,200 was paid and fixed in good faith as sale price? OPD
(4) Market value? OPD
(5) Relief.
' The parties led their evidence. The respondent/plaintiff appeared as a witness and tendered documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, including pedigree tables Ex.P.1, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 and copies of Jambandi Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6. The petitioner/defendant did not care to rebut this evidence. Neither he himself appeared as a witness nor he produced any oral or documentary evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 18-11-1975. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Abdi Hussain Shah filed an appeal, which was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat, on 10-7-1978, hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documentary evidence, pedigree tables Ex.P.1, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 do not connect the respondent/plaintiff with the vendor; that the onus to prove himself as collateral of the vendor and Shareek Khata was on the respondent/plaintiff, which he has not been able to discharge; that his bald statement was not sufficient to prove his being a collateral of the vendor and Shareek Khata and that the petitioner/defendant was out of the country at the time of the trial of the suit.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with him. I find that the respondent, while appearing as a PW, has clearly stated that he was a collateral of the vendor and Shareek Khata of the suit land. This part of the statement was not questioned in cross-examination. Furthermore, neither the petitioner himself appeared to rebut this statement of the respondent nor did he care to produce any witness. The learned Appellate Judge was quite competent to believe the evidence disbelieved by the learned trial Court and under section 134 of the Evidence Act, he could act upon the statement of a single witness i,e. The plaintiff. He has applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of his decision. His judgment is not perverse in any manner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, with the findings of the Appellate Court. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed.