1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.--This petition arises out of a suit instituted by respondent No. 1 herein to pre- empt an oral sale of 1 kanal of land bearing Khasra No. 899/564 situate in Mahal Tehrahi, Tehsil and District Peshawar, by Haji Wazir Muhammad respondent No. 2, to favour of the two petitioners herein. The mutation was entered at No. 1430 and attested on 20-11-1962 for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 6,174. Respondent No. I who claim--ed a right of pre-eruption, it appears objected to the sale in favour of the petitioners herein and gave them registered notices to admit his right of pre-emption and deliver the possession of land on payment of the price actually paid by them. Incidentally, he did not accept the price as entered in the mutation order. Getting no response from the petitioners, respondent No. 1 filed a suit which after contest 6v the petitioners herein was decreed on 18-5-1966 on payment of Rs. 3,198 which according to the trial Judge was the market value of the land.
2. It appears that soon after the sale in their favour the petitioners started constructing a building on the land in dispute. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he had advised them not to proceed with the construction of the building because of his impending suit for pre-emption. Immediately, on the mutation, of the suit, on an application made by respondent No. 1, the trial Court also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioners from raising any structure on the land during the pendency of the suit. Never--theless, it appears that the petitioners built a house and therefore, in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of respondent No. 1, clamed the cost of the building. In addition to the sale price. The trial Court assessed the cost of the building at Rs. 7,890.32, but decreed the suit of respondent No. 1 for the possession of land on payment of its market value, viz. Rs. 5198 and rejected the petitioner's claim for compensation on account of the instruction of the building because the same was constructed "in bad faith" despite the caveat entered by respondent No. 1 and the injunction issued by the Court. The decree also required the petitioners to remove the structure within six months. On appeal the decree of the trial Court was affirmed both as regards the superior claim of respondent No. 1 and the price he was required to pay for the land.
3. On further appeal by the peti--tioners, a learned Single Judge however, modified the decree of the two Courts below, and decreed the suit of respondent No. I not only on the payment of Rs. 5,198 as the price of the land assessed on the basis of its market value, but in addition thereto on payment of Rs. 7,890.32 as costs of the construction. In requiring respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioners the cost of construction In addition to the price of land, the learned Single Judge disagreed will the concurrent findings of the two Courts below that respondent No. 1 lost no time to notify to the petitioners his intention to pre-empt the sate and also advised them not to raise any construction over the land.
4. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, two Letters Patent Appeals were filed, one by respondent No. 1 and the other by the petitioners herein. The learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench, after what appears to be a careful assessment of the evidence produced in the case, came to the conclusion that on the evidence produced in the case, it is established beyond any doubt that the petitioners had raised the construction despite to caveat entered by respondent No. 1 and the violation of the prohibitory order issued by the trial Court. The learned Judges also opined that the learned Single Judge was not justified in reversing the concurrent finding of the two Courts below based as it was on cogent evidence in the case. They particularly referred to the evidence of respondent No. 1, who stated on oath that immediately after the sale, he had notified his intention to the petitioners of his intention to pre-empt the sale and asked them to admit his claim and thus to obviate the filing of the suit by him and also to desist from raising any construction over the land. This part of his statement had gone absolutely unchallenged which was re-Enforced by the issue of two registered notices and the prohibitory order by the trial Court. That apart, the learned Judges also opined that having regard to the provisions of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and learned Single Judge was not at all justified to interfere with the concurrentfindings recorded by the two Courts below on the point.
5. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument only to that part of the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench which had restored the decree of the trial Court, requiring the petitioners to remove their structure over the land in dispute within six months of the date of the decree. It was submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge on the point was well founded and that the findings of the two Courts below suffered from a misreading of evidence in material particulars. However, the learned counsel failed to point out as to what part of the evidence was misread, so as to vitiate the finding of the first two Courts.
6. Havingheard the petitioner's learned counsel at some length, we have not doubt that the case was rightly decided by the Letters Patent Bench.
7. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.