' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises is the following circumstances.
1. The appellants purchased 8 Kanals of land of which they were the tenant for Rs, 24,000 through a registered sale deed dated 12-10-1980 from Noor Muhammad. The latter's son Mumtaz Hussain Aamer the respondent filed a suit for pre-emption. After the trial, the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran vide judgment and decree dated 8-9-1985 held the appellants entitled to retain the land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla and 3 Sarsahies and for the rent decree was granted in favour of the respondent. The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree on 20-2-1986 and his revision petition by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide order dated 11-3-1986.
2. At the leave stage it was contended inter alia that the three Courts below had misapplied the decision of this Court in "Fateh Khan v. Abdur Rehman" (1983 SCM R 293) and that the question of period of possession was misconceived. Leave was granted on 11-6-1990.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions made at leave stage. It is also contended that the respondent-pre-emptor is a son of the vendor and was a student at the time of the sale. The suit was collusive. Nobody appeared to oppose the appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and peruing the record with his assistance, we find that in view of the evidence on record the respondent/pre-emptor the son of the vendor was not entitled to pre-empt the sale made by his father. Reliance is placed on "Naseer Ahmad v.
Arshad Ahmad" (PLD 1984 SC 402). The appeal is, therefore, allowed without order as to costs in the circumstances