Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100 , 15

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15---Second appeal--Scope---Concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below that plaintiff had superior right of pre-emption, could not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal till such time that the defendant was able to disprove such finding of fact by referring to cogent evidence. Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----S. 15---Suit for pre-emption ---Plaintiffs suit was decreed on the ground that he was owner in Taraf Patti ---Record, however, showed that he was also a co- sharer in the Khata in question---Courts below however, failed to attach importance to those documents which not only established that plaintiff besides being a co-owner in the estate was also a co-sharer in the Khata in which land in question was situate---Plaintiff thus had a superior right of pre-emption on being a co-sharer in the Khata in question. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Plaintiffs suit having been decreed by Courts below he was entitled to support judgment and decree in second appeal, even on the grounds which did not find favour with the Courts below. Sh. Abdur Rashid for Appellant. Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1992. JUDGMENT   Land measuring 11 Kanals 3 Marlas is in dispute in the present case. It was mortgaged with some evacuee and in 1962 was added to the compensation pool. It was allotted to one Muhammad Ishaq on 24-4-1966 vide Mutation No. 1526. Muhammad Ishaq sold the land in question to the appellant. .This sale was pre-empted by the respondent on 25-4-1967 through the suit out of which the present R.SA. has arisen. The respondent asserted his superior right qua the land in question on three accounts: (i) he is collateral of the vendor Muhammad Ishaq, (ii) he is co-sharer in the joint Khata, and (iii) he is owner in the estate. According to the respondent the appellant did not possess all these qualifications and, therefore, he had a superior right of pre-emption. Written statement was filed and the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were settled. On 3-9-1968 the learned trial Court…