1. ' This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-11-1981 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, whereby dismissing the 1st appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 13-8-1979 of the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.The facts leading to the filing of the above revision petition are that the petitioner is transferee of property viz. House at ground floor and one room on the first floor bearing C.S. No, B-1687/1688, Foujdari Road, near Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad from the Settlement Department viz. P.W.D. No,8050 dated 24-9- 1963. The name of the petitioner was accordingly mutated in the city survey and she is in possession thereof. The respondent No,3 is transferee of part of first floor viz. Three rooms at first floor of property bearing No,C.S.D-1687-1688, Foujdari Road. Both properties stated above are interconnected. The petitioner and the respondent No,3 were the joint transferees of the property as per their claim and share. The petitioner is co-sharer at first floor in the property transferred to respondent No,3. The remaining property of the petitioner is at ground floor and over the above property of the respondent No,3. The roof of the petitioner's property is the floor of the respondent No,3's property whereas walls of the other amenities of the aforesaid properties are common. The boundaries of the petitioners and respondent No,3's property are also the same. The petitioner has right of pre 4 emption as she is Shafi-e-Khilat and Shat-e-Jar in the said property. The respondent No,3 sold the suit property to the respondents No,1 and 2 on 28-21977 for consideration of Rs, 2,000.
2. The transaction was made secretly and it was concealed in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner for pre-emption.
3. ' The suit property is in dilapidated condition and is not fit for human dwelling and moreover the suit property is not being used by the respondent since long nor its possession was given to the respondents Nos,1 and 2 after sale. In the first week of last Holy month of Ramazan, some persons entered on the suit property and were inspecting the suit property. The petitioner, who resided at the ground floor, came on the suit property and made enquiry whereupon she was informed that the suit property was purchased by the respondents 1 and 2 and they have been directed to estimate the Malba of the first floor; when the petitioner came to know about the sale, she then and there exercised her right of pre-emption and declared her intention to purchase the property and thus she made Talab-e-Muwasbat. The persons standing on the suit property informed the petitioner that they would inform the said thing to the respondents Nos,1 and 2 and their father Imdad Hussain Junejo.
4. ' The respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement and contested the suit. The respondent No,3 adopted the same written statement. The respondents contended that the house of the petitioner is not inter-connected with the first floor of the respondent No,3 nor they were joint transferees. The petitioner's premises are independent premises on the ground floor only, the petitioner has got no right of pre-emption. The respondents pleaded that no such alleged demands were made by the petitioner from the respondents or their father. The respondent No,3 used to reside in the said premises to the knowledge of the petitioner and he sold the premises in dispute to the respondents 1 and 2 through registered sale-deed, to the knowledge of the petitioner. They also pleaded that after sale to the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad against the respondents Nos,2 and 3 regarding the dispute of the mutation of actual area in her possession. The respondents also claimed portion of C.S. No, 16871688 ground floor which was purchased by Imdad Hussain Junejo from the transferee Abdul Ghafoor. The statement of the petitioner was recorded during the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad on 6-11-1977 where she did not claim or assert her right of pre-emption over the first floor of premises. Ultimately the record of city survey was ordered to be mutated accordingly in the name of the petitioner and respondents Nos,2 and 3 by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner remained satisfied with the said order. The respondents pleaded that the entire property had been demolished and the premises in dispute were no more in existence before the filing of the suit. The petitioner is not Shafi-e-Shaarik, Shafi-e-Khilat and Shafi-e-Jar in the property in suit.
5. ' On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on assessment of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not full owner of C.S. Nos,1687 and 1688 but she owns only a small portion thereof. On issue No,2, the finding is that one room is not built on the first floor but it is located somewhere between the ground floor and the first floor. On issue No,3, the conclusion arrived at is that the petitioner not being co-owner could not claim her right of pre-emption as Shafi-e-Sharik. In that view of the matter, the finding is that it could by no means be said if the pre-empted property occupies either the document or the servient heritage vis-a-vis the house of the petitioner. According to the trial Court, there is no question of Shafi-e-Khilat either because there is no documentary proof to show that the pre- empted property used the same pipe for discharge of the sewerage water etc. The learned Civil Judge held that the petitioner failed to name the persons before whom she had made her intention known. He also found that even those witnesses were not examined on the point of Talab- e-Muwasbat. He observed that Talab-e-Ishhad could only be completed if it is made with specific reference to previous Talab-e-Muwasbat. In that view of the matter, the trial Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the making of required Talabs/demands. The learned Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the respondents Nos,1 and 2 possess superior right of pre-emption in comparison to that of the petitioner. On these findings, the suit was dismissed.
6. ' The appellate Court re-assessed the evidence on record. The appellate Court affirmed the findings on issues Nos,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. In that view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed.
7. Hence the present revision petition.
8. ' Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same contentions as were raised before the lower appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have gone through the R & P of the case. I have perused the impugned judgments of Courts below.
9. It appears that the area of both the C.S. Nos, 1687 and 1688 is 378.3 square yards and 339.3 square yards. The area of the petitioner in C.S. No,1687 is 1440 square feet and 365 square feet in C.S. No,1688. It seems that the findings of Courts below on issue No,1 is in consonance with the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any misreading on issue No,1 The petitioner has not brought any documentary evidence in support of her contention that the petitioner is co-sharer. On the contrary the A petitioner herself admitted in her evidence that the level of small room was not on the level of first floor of the property of the respondents. The learned Additional District Judge also visited the site in presence of the parties. He stated in the report that there were out-houses of the respondents' building over and above the loft which was built inside the room of the petitioner. This is a concurrent finding of fact. The learned counsel is unable to point out any misreading or illegality in the above concurrent finding. Shafi-e-Jar. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has The petitioner claimed pre-emption on the basis of Shafi-e-Khilat and failed to prove that she is co-sharer in the suit property and that there are common walls.
10. ' A perusal of recital of sale-deed (Exh. 24) would show that the possession was handed over to the respondents 1 and 2. It has come on record that the respondents 1 and 2 have demolished the dilapidated structure. In that view of the matter, I think the Courts.Below rightly decided this issue.
11. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not necessary for the pre-emptor to make reference to the first demand, Talab-e-Muwasbat, while making the second demand, Talab- e-Ishhad. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Qureshi submits that it is necessary for the pre-emptor to make reference to her first demand while making the second talab or demand.
12. ' This question has been considered by Mr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, J. (now Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court) in Anwar All v. Shah Nawaz (PLD 1989 Karachi 246) in which he has come to the conclusion after giving cogent reasons, which are fully supported by the various authorities and Hidaya discussed by him in the said judgment that non-reference in the second demand to the earlier demand was fatal to the claim of pre-emption. I am in respectful agreement with this decision, as such I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have decided correctly. On this question the concurrent finding has been recorded by the learned Courts below to the effect that the petitioner has not complied with the required legal formalities and has not made Talabs in accordance with law. The competency of Courts below to record such finding has, of course, not been challenged.
13. This means that a finding on a question of fact involved in the case has been recorded against the petitioner by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. Such a finding cannot be called in question by way of revision before the High Court in the absence of any jurisdictional error, illegal or material irregularity. (See AIR 1949 PC 156, PLD 1970 SC 288 and PLD 1983 SC 53). If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly from the conclusions of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. No such shortcoming has been noticed in the present case and, therefore, there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below.
14. ' For the foregoing reasons, this civil revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.