Law:

Section:

(a) N. W. F. P. Pre emption Act (XIV of 1950) -------S. 22 Pre emption Suit for pre emption Need not necessarily be supported by documentary evidence, such as for example, revenue records Suit, held, can be decreed even in absence of documentary evidence. (b) N..W. F. P. Pre emption Act (XIV of 1950) ----S. 12 Contiguity Sale deed produced by petitioner not corroborat¬ing petitioner's claim of land in dispute being contiguous to his land and not contiguous to respondent's Case of both parties resting solely on oral evidence and respondent's evidence supported by two witnesses No error of law in concurrent findings of Courts below pointed out Supreme Court also not interfering with concurrent findings on a question of fact merely on ground of a different view being possible on evidence Petition dismissed. (c) N: W. F. P. Preemption Act (XIV of 1950)-¬ S. 12 Pre emption suit Contiguity of land Contention that one of Commissioners appointed by trial Court reported respondent's land being separated from land in dispute by a ravine Respondent having not accepted Commissioner's report as correct, Commissioner also being not examined, and respondent's counsel having not challenged observations in impugned order stating Commissioner having been appointed only to assess market value of suit land. Commissioner's report even if containing some observations about alleged ravine same, held, of no help to petitioner's case at all. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J. The land in dispute in this petition , for leave is situated in Malakand and was owned by one Bahramand who sold it to the petitioner in October, 1975 for a sum Rs. 22,500 therefore, the respondent filed a suit for pre emption in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Malakand at Batkhela. The pre emption was sought on the ground that the respondent was a co sharer, that his 1 and was contiguous to the land sold etc. The petitioner contested the suit and his claim was that his land was contiguous to the land in dispute in the suit. But he only examined himself in support of his contention that his land was contiguous to the land in dispute in the suit. The respondent on the other hand examined himself and two other witnesses to…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492