GURANDITTA Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Munshi Singh sold the land in dispute for an amount (I Rs. 12,500/- in favour of Guranditta and others by means of a sale deed, dated March 30, 1967. Balbir Singh respondent filed a suit for pre-emption on the allegation that he was brother's son of the vendor. The suit was contested by the appellants on various grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment and decree was affirmed by the appellate Court. The vendees have filed the present regular second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. D.D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, that Balbir Singh plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the nephew of Munshi Singh vendor. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel. Exhibit P. 1 is the copy of the pedigree table and from its bare reading it is clear that the plaintiff is the nephew of Munshi Singh vendor. Further the Courts below have found after the consideration of entire evidence, as a fact, that the plaintiff is the nephew of the vendor. This finding being a pure finding of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal. Moreover, as earlier observed, I find no material on this record to take a different view other than the one arrived at by the Courts below on this aspect of the matter.

(3.) It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the vendees are the mahatams and were residents of village Bunga Khan Singh Wala, that they had migrated from the area under the jurisdiction of Police Station Atari, District Montgomery and that by virtue of notification of the Punjab Government No. 4134R(iv)-63/1892, dated July 16, 1963, the sale of the land made in their favour was not pre-emptible. This contention of the learned counsel again has no merit. The learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, after considering the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the vendees have failed to prove that before migration, they were residing in village Bunga Khan Singh Wala and had migrated from the area under jurisdiction of Police Station Atari in district Montogomery. This apparently is a pure finding of fact. However, Mr. Jain contends that this finding of the learned Additional District Judge is based on misreading of evidence of D. W. 2 and D.W. 3. I have gone through the statements of those two witnesses and find that their evidence has not been misread by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned counsel has not challenged the correctness of the finding on any other ground. Thus, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, on this aspect of the matter, being pure findings of fact, cannot be disturbed in second appeal.