MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus INAYAT SHAH

ORDER

MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.--- This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption. decree which has been affirmed by all the Courts below in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.-

2. The sale transaction which has been successfully pre-empted by the respondent related to the agriculture land measuring 33 Kanals and 2 Marlas in village Odherwal, Tehsil Chakwal. The sale was pre-empted by the respondent on the basis of his rights as a collateral of the vendor; owner in the estate, co sharer in the Khata and Patti Sikanderpur. The suit was resisted by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that there was no Patti in village Odherwal wherein the respondent could lay claim as a co-owner for the purposes of pre-emption and, therefore, he was not possessed of right of pre-emption. The learned trial Judge held that the only tribes holding s proprietary rights in Patti Sikanderpur at. the time of the earliest settlement of lands were Kahut Quresh, Nair Minhas and Awan which represented a homogeneity of decent of proprietors and that as the land in dispute formed part of Patti Sikanderpur wherein the respondent was an owner whereas the petitioner was a stranger. The suit was thus, decreed. On appeal, the learned District Judge comprehensively traced the origin of the Pattis in the rural tribes of Punjab and came to a definite conclusion that even before and at the time of the first settlement of lands "the village had clear cut 'Paths' and Patti Slkanderpur in which the disputed land belonged to Kahut Quresh who included therein the rights of religious teachers belonging to Mair and Awan Tribes and that those Pattis were relevant for asserting right of pre-emption also and were not meant for the fiscal purposes as had been asserted on behalf of the petitioner. .

3. This order has been affirmed by a learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, upholding the findings of the two Courts below that the ' Pattis' had not been created merely for fiscal purposes but had, existed since considerable long period even before the settlement of lands in the village and would be deemed to be 'Pattis' created for the purposes of Clause Secondly of section 15(C) of the Punjab Pre-emptidn Act (No.I of 1913).

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner, as it was contended in the High Court that both the learned Courts below had erred in reaching the conclusion that three independent Pattis existed in the village and that as a matter of fact there had been only one Patti belonging to Kahut Quresh and that they had gifted a part of their Patti which was relevant for the fiscal purposes and had not been meant to confer right of pre-emption on the donees.

5. We have examined the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have not been persuaded to hold that the learned two Courts below and the learned Single Judge in the High Court had erred in reaching the conclusion that there existed only one Patti in the village which belonged to Quresh Kahut Tribe - and that as the portions thereof had been gifted to Mair and Awan Tribes, those portions would qualify as Pattis for fiscal purposes but would not be relevant for the purposes of vesting rights of pre-emption on the donees or on descendants. As observed earlier, the learned District Judge had in an elaborate discussion on the origin of 'Pattis' in the rural area of Punjab held against the petitioner which finding of fact had been affirmed by the High Court.

6. As the contention raised merely pertains to question of fact, which has duly been considered and rightly decided not only by the two Courts below butt, has also been affirmed by the High Court, we see no ground for interference.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

M.B.A./M-109/S Petition dismissed.