SYED JAMSHED ALI, J. - Land measuring 10 kanals situated in chak No. 3/1-L, Tehsil and District Okara was owned by one Jan Muhammad. Through registered sale-deed dated 21.7.1977, he sold the aforesaid land in favour of present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 20,000.00.
2. The respondent herein, claiming superior right of pre-emption, on the ground that she was owner of the estate pre-empted the sale. The suit was contested on a number of grounds on which issues were framed and was tried.
3. On consideration of the evidence produced by the parties the suit filed by the respondent was decreed on 21.1.1981. The petitioner took an appeal before the learned District Court but it was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.1981. The aforesaid judgments and decrees are the subject-matter of this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. Firstly that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee was incorrect and secondly that evidence brought on the record on issue No. 2 (waiver) has arbitrarily been rejected by the learned two Courts. The basis of the first contention is that the statement of not profits pertained to 3 kanal, 15 marlas in Kharif 1977 and 5 kanal, 10 marlas in Rabi 1978 only and therefore, the remaining land should have been valued ad- voleram.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact. As far as the question of value for the purpose of Court- fee is concerned, he submits that the suit was correctly valued at 15 times of the not profits that had arisen from the land.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The suit was valued on the basis of the statement of not profits and the contention being raised now by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not raised before the learned two Courts below.
7. It is essentially a question of fact as to what was the nature of land and whether not profits had or had not arisen at the relevant time. Therefore, the first contention has no merit. As far as the question of waiver is concerned, the learned two Courts have concurrently disbelieved the oral evidence produced by the petitioner.
8. 1, see no ground to interfere. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.