' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---A sale transaction in respect of land measuring 102 Kanals, 5 Marlas, effected through a registered sale deed dated 11-10-1962, in favour of Muhammad Amin predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was followed by a pre-emption suit brought by Mst.
Askari Begum predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Superior right of pre-emption was claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of being 'Yakjadi' and 'Khewatdar'. The evidence of the respondents was closed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. And the suit was'decreed by the learned trial Court with the findings that the pre-emptor was possessed of a superior right of pre-emption being 'Yakjadi' of the vendee. The claim of being a 'Khewatdar' made by the pre-emptor was, however, turned down. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree was accepted by the learned District Judge, Jhang and the case was remanded with the direction that the respondents be provided an opportunity to produce evidence. The learned trial Court complied with the direction but dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 6-6-1979 which was upheld by the learned Appellate Court. The revision petition was also dismissed on 22-2-1994 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore with the following observations:-- ' "As regards the plea of Khewatdar the documents produced by the parties before the trial Court have not been brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, expressed his inability to support the said claim. He, however, added that the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 attached with the Memo. Of petition be referred to. This document admittedly was not produced before the trial Court. Moreover, no request till date has been made for seeking permission to produce the said copy of Jamabandi as additional evidence. This being the position, the said document at this late stage cannot be referred to specially at the back of the respondents-defendants. The claim of being 'Yakjadi' has been discussed by the learned Appellate Court in detail. In order to substantiate the claim copy of the pedigree-table appearing in the family register was sought to be proved. This piece of evidence was considered to be inadmissible as the author of the pedigree-table was neither produced nor entries in the said family register were proved to have been made 'regularly. This fact stands admitted by Asghar Abbas P.W.1.
Moreover, he is an interested witness and his testimony on this score was also rightly discarded. It is also to be noted that a copy of the pedigree-table said to have been obtained from Central Record Room has been placed on record alongwith Memo. Of Revision Petition. Again there is no request to produce the said document as additional evidence in accordance with law. The same as such cannot be relied upon being not part of the evidence. The plaintiff has not been connected with the said pedigree-table or with the pedigree-table sought to be produced as Exh.P.W.1/A. This being the position, the view which prevailed with the learned Appellate Court merits not to be interfered with."
2. Leave was granted to consider the contentions that Mst. Askari Begum was not only 'Khewatdar' in the estate but was also 'Yakjadi' of the vendor in view of the overlooked admission contained in the statement of Muhammad (D.W.1).
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the claim of Mst. Askari Begum that she was a 'Khewatdar' was supported by a copy of the registered sale deed dated 2-10-1962 marked Exh.D.2., available on the Paper Book, whereby she had sold land measuring 76 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Village Korala to one Haji Muhammad Shafi. It was further contended that one of the witnesses examined by the defendants, namely, Muhammad (D.W.1) had admitted in his cross- examination in most unequivocal terms that Mst. Askari Begum was 'Yakjadi' of the vendor but all the Courts had overlooked the admission.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by three Courts that Mst. Askari Begum was neither 'Khewatdar' in the estate nor 'Yakjadi' of the vendor and a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence had not been made out. He further submitted that the so-called admission contained in the statement of Muhammad (D.W.1) is liable to be ignored being inconsistent with the positive assertion made by him in his examination-in-chief that he had no knowledge of the vendor's relationship with the pre-emptor. Another argument addressed in this respect was that the said admission was not supported by any independent evidence or document on record. The learned counsel placed reliance on Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhmamad Khan 1989 SCM R 1026 and Muhammad Naeem and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others 1994 SCM R 559 to contend that the pre-emptor was obliged to prove that copy of the pedigree-table placed on record pertained to her but she had failed to do so.
5. The contention that Mst. Askari Begum was a 'Khewatdar' in the estate is untenable in the face of concurrent findings of fact to the contrary, recorded by as many as three Courts which did not suffer from any infirmity traceable to misreading or non-reading of evidence. Non-reading of evidence cannot be based on the document marked Exh.D.2. Inasmuch as it neither found mention in the statement of any witness nor its execution has been proved in accordance with law and was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the defendants while closing the evidence of the defendants. Besides, the claim is not supported by any Revenue Record and the application moved by the appellants in the High Court for placing certain self-attested documents on record was dismissed on 13-2-1994. Relevant portion of the order is worded thus:-- ' "Obviously at this stage, any new document cannot be referred to in the judgment to be passed, for the various reasons that the respondents-defendants have no notice of the same and that additional evidence cannot be entertained. Even request for permission to produce additional evidence, is not accompanied. The application is, therefore, dismissed."
6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not better than the first one as it too is pitted against unexceptionable concurrent findings of fact recorded by three Courts. The admission attributed to one of the witnesses examined by the appellants, namely, Muhammad (D. W.1) was rightly overlooked because it has been made by a person having no relationship with the family of Mst. Askari Begum and being incompatible with the assertion made in the examination-in-chief indicating lack of knowledge of relationship between Mst. Askari Begum and the vendor and unaugmented by an authentic pedigree-table is too bald to be conclusive proof of the matter admitted. The appellants cannot make any mileage from the pedigree-table Exh.P.W.1/A placed on record by Asghar Abbas (P.W.1) because it was admittedly prepared by the said witness from a book which was not produced in the Court. There is nothing on the record from which it could be gathered that the pedigree-table Exh.P.W.1/A was a genuine document and pertained to the appellants. In the case of Muhammad Hussain and others (supra) the pedigree-table tendered in evidence at the close of the appellants' evidence by their counsel was kept out of consideration for the reason that there was nothing on the record to show that it pertained to the appellants. Similar Observations were made in the second case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents.
' For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.