Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100,14

Law: Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)

Section: 22

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Second appeal-Concurrent finding of fact-Cannot be interfered with.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, r. 14-Decree in pre-emption suit-Plaintiff having right to challenge, by means of appeal, finding as regards purchase price-Cannot be compelled to deposit amount within time fixed by trial Court-Failure of plaintiff to deposit amount pending appeal-Does not deprive him of his right of pre-emption-Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 22.   In a suit for pre-emption it is contrary to sound principle to compel the plaintiff to pay the amount decreed by the trial Court and to subject him to the penalty of losing the right of pre-emption if he fails to do so, when he has a right to question the correctness of the amount made payable by the trial Court by means of an appeal against it.   Kodai Singh v. Jaisri Singh and others I L R 13 All. 376; Bankey Behari Lal and another v. Abdur Rahman and others A I R 1932 Oudh 63 and Laxman Ramchandra Dalai v. Wasudeo Vithal Chimote A I R 1939 Nag. 120 ref.   Date of hearing: 10th February 1966.  JUDGMENT In this Second Appeal the dispute between the parties is in respect of 23 kanals 9 marlas being 1/8th share of land measuring 187 kanals 16 marlas in certain khatas situated in village Majra Khurd, Tehsil Daska. The appellant filed Suit No. 196 of 1953 for pre-emption of the land in dispute sold by Mst. Sakina Bibi for an ostensible consideration of Rs.900. The appellant a co-sharer in the land claimed superior right of pre-emption but alleged that the vendees paid only a sum of Rs. 250 to the vendors and that the sum of Rs. 900 was fictitiously mentioned as consi deration of the sale. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot by judgment dated the 13th October 1954 rejected the plea of the appellant that the sale consideration was Rs. 250 and decreed the suit for pre-emption on payment of a sum of Rs. 900 by 13th November 1954 failing which he directed that the suit shall stand dismissed with costs. The appellant challenged the finding on the question of consideration in Civil Appeal No. 195 of 1954 which was dismissed by the District Judge Sialkot by…