' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 26-6-1991 of Peshawar High Court, whereby Civil Review Petition No,419 of 1991 is dismissed.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts in the background are that petitioner Nawab Khan purchased suit land vide Mutation No,2702 dated 14-12-1972 in respect of which Ismail and Shahzada filed two suits for possession through pre-emption. Plaintiffs in the suits claim superior right of pre-emption against vendee/defendant and alleged that suit land was sold without notice to preemptors and at lower price than shown in the mutation. Both the suits were consolidated and six issues were framed. Parties produced evidence. Consequently trial Court came to the conclusion that both rival pre-emptors had their lands contiguous to the suit land, hence they had superior right of pre- emption and decreed the suits in equal shares on payment of Rs,3,865.60 each.
3. During the hearing of appeal, Additional. District Judge, Peshawar framed an additional issue with regard to the improvement allegedly made in the suit land and sent the record hack to the trial Court for determination of that issue after recording evidence of the parties. Trial Court found sum of Rs,15,425 to be the value of improvement made in the land and submitted such finding to the appellate Court, which dismissed appeal with direction to preemptors to deposit value of the improvement within period of 30 days.
4. Not satisfied, petitioner filed revision petition in the High Court challenging judgments and decrees on the ground that the suits were time-barred and plaintiffs in the suit had by their conduct waived their right of preemption. High Court has dismissed revision petition on the ground that both the contentions raised were factual in nature on which findings of the two Courts below are concurrent and against the petitioner. High Court is also of the view that no misreading or non- reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity has taken place warranting interference in revision.
5. Before us it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that suits are barred by time inasmuch as the vendee/petitioner is recorded in the possession of disputed property since Kharif 1972 whereas suit was filed after Rabi crop 1973 and secondly that the Courts below have ignored admissions of preemptors/respondents with regard to the delivery of possession to vendee/petitioner.
6. It appears from the record that in the trial Court there is no separate issue on the question of possession because no such specific plea was taken in the written statement. However, issue No,4 is whether the suit is not within time. In the discussion of this issue, question of possession, as claimed by the vendee/petitioner, is discussed. Claim of vendee that he came into possession as per Khasra Girdawari since Kharif 1972 while the suits were filed on 13-12-1973, is rejected by the trial Court on the ground that mere change in Khasra Girdawari is not enough to prove change of possession specially in suits for possession through pre-emption in which strict proof of change of possession is required. Trial Court also noted that vendee/petitioner took inconsistent pleas by saying on one hand that they were tenants and therefore had a superior right of pre-emption and on the other hand that they obtained possession under the sale since Kharif 1972 and since then the period of limitation was to be computed.
7. After assessm ent of whole evidence with particular reference to the evidence of vendee/petitioner, trial Court observed in its judgment as under:-- "Taking whole of the evidence and demeanour of vendee defendant, it is quite clear that possession was not delivered under the sale before the attestation of mutation in dispute. Hence the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of attestation of mutation in dispute. Both of these suits though separately registered on different dates were instituted on 13-12-1973. The mutation in dispute is attested on 14-12-1972. These suits, within one year of attestation of sale mutation are within time. Issue decided in favour of the plaintiff and rival preemptor."
8. On these questions of fact finding of the trial Court is maintained in appeal and revision. We do not find any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which is challenged before us in this petition. For the facts and reasons stated above, leave is refused and petition is dismissed as it has no merit.