' This judgment will also dispose of Civil Revision No.199 of 1980 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them.
2. This is plaintiffs revision petition which has arisen from pre-emption suit filed by him in which he claimed right of pre-emption on the ground of being collateral of the vendor namely Dilawar Hussain and that his land was contiguous to the land in dispute.
3. The suit was contested by respondent/vendee. She denied that the plaintiff had superior right of pre-emption.
4. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner established that he was collateral of the vendor therefore, the suit was decreed through judgment and decree, dated 17-5-1978. In appeal filed by the respondent/vendee this finding lam been reversed and the suit dismissed through judgment and decree, dated 18-12-1979 by which the appeal was accepted by the learned lower appellate Court. This judgment and decree has been challenged in this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of the learned lower appellate Court that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction because of the failure of the petitioner to place on record "{{Urdu Text}}" and that the failure of the petitioner to submit list of witnesses within seven days of the framing of issues had rendered the evidence of the petitioner inadmissible are not maintainable.
6. The argument has force. Even if in the opinion of the learned lower appellate Court the suit was not correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction although the learned trial Court found that it was correctly valued, the learned lower appellate Court should have ascertained as to what was the correct valuation of the suit and should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to make up deficiency in the court-fee which was to be specified by the Court. Since the petitioner examined the witnesses in the suit at his own responsibility and did not summon them through the process of the Court, therefore, as per rule laid down by Full Bench of this Court the said evidence could not be discarded and kept out of consideration as such the findings of the learned lower appellate Court on these two points are not sustainable.
7. Since the learned lower appellate Court has also recorded finding on merits after considering the evidence produced by the parties therefore nothing turns on the reversal of the findings of the learned lower appellate Court on the above-mentioned two points therefore, I proceed to decide the revision petition on merits.
8. The crucial issue in the case was as to whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing his superior right of pre-emption. The learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments mainly relied upon Ext. P.1 which is photostat copy of page 418 of a Book named "Urdu Text" in which pedigree table of the petitioner's family according to him has been given. This document was proved by P.Ws.1 and 2 who were examined by the petitioner who was in possession of the said book. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to Ext.P1, statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the evidence of the petitioner himself the following pedigree table emerges. Budhan and Sabat Shah were two brothers. Sabat Shah had two sons namely Shujaat All and Shujaat Shah. Shujaat Shah's son was Haji Shah whose son was Barkat Shah who was the father of the plaintiff namely Azhar Hussain.
9. Shujaat Ali had son namely Nawab Shah whose son was Sardar Shah and Mst. Jannat Bibi the vendee is the daughter of this Sardar Shah. Another Sardar Shah father of Dilawar Hussain the vendor was the successor of Budhan the brother of Sabat Shah.
10. It is clear from this that both the petitioner/plaintiff and Jannat Bibi the vendee are the collaterals of Dilawar Hussain Shah as they are related to him through their ancestor Sabat Shah who was brother of Budhan. Even if this position which emerges according 'to learned counsel for the petitioner from his evidence is taken as correct the petitioner cannot be held to have right of pre-emption superior to that of the vendee.
11. This is apart from the fact that strictly speaking the Shajra Nasib Ext.P.1 does not stand proved as the book from which page 418 was taken and produced in evidence has not been duly proved in accordance with law. This book was not a public document therefore Shajra Nasib mentioned therein was to be strictly proved by a person who either personally know the facts mentioned therein or was the author.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner faintly argued that Dilawar Hussain Shah the vendor was also the maternal-uncle of the petitioner/plaintiff. He further frankly conceded when questioned that the petitioner was not his collateral on account of this relationship as such this fact even if taken into consideration has no bearing on the merits of the case and does not advance the case of the petitioner any further.
13. Viewed from whatever angle the petitioner failed to prove his superior right of pre-emption therefore the learned lower appellate Court has not committed any material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the suit of the petitioner.
14. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition fails which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.