' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.----This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances: ' The appellants purchased land measuring 35 Kanals 18 Marlas in Mauza Kat Hashmat, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala from Mst. Inayat Bibi daughter of Muhammad Din for a consideration of Rs,14,118 through a registered sale-deed dated 7-9-1972. The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption claiming preferential right to purchase. Relevant Issue No,1 was framed to the following effect: "Whether the plaintiffs have got superior right of pre-emption?"
' Finding that in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Hafizabad vide judgment and decree dated 17-7-1975. Appellants-vendees' first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 31-5-1979 and their Regular Second Appeal No,807 of 1979 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-12-1979.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that excepting producing pedigree-tables through a counsel the plaintiffs-respondents led no evidence whatsoever to prove that they were related to the vendor to have the superior right of pre-emption as alleged by them. Learned counsel referred to Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Khan, (1989 SCM R 1026) and submitted that where the pre-emptors had merely tendered a copy of pedigree-table ,showing their relationship with vendor in proof of preferential right of preemption without there being any evidence to show that such pedigree-tables pertained to the pre-emptors, the suit was dismissed.
In the case in hand, the learned counsel submitted that no witness at all, not even the plaintiffs- respondents appeared in support of the preferential claim to say as to how the plaintiffs were related to the vendor. Even the pedigree-tables were not produced by them. Only their learned counsel tendered the same in Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in view of the record could not controvert the contention.
4. In view of the above circumstances and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents to say that they were related to the vendor their suit could not be decreed. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.