' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Land measuring 82 Kanals, 2 Marlas was sold by Zulfiqar son of Machi to the present petitioners namely Zulfiqar and Sarfraz sons of Khadim Hussain, Manak and Baig jointly. It was sought to be pre-empted by the respondent through suit from which this petition has arisen.
The right of pre-emption was claimed on the ground of collateralship and co-sharership in the Khata. It was contested on the ground that the vendees were tenants qua the land sold, therefore, had superior right of pre-emption. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 28-11- 1978 by holding that the petitioners were tenants of the land in dispute, therefore, could defend the right of preemption of the respondent on the ground of collateralship and cosharership. The First Appellate Court, however, in appeal filed by the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to prove that they were tenants over the land in dispute and even if that was so, it was only Zulfiqar one of the vendees who claimed himself to be tenant over the land in dispute and he having joined the other three vendees who were not tenants in the sale according to the rule of sinker had also lost his right to defend the suit on the ground of tenancy as his own status was relegated to the position of a stranger. Second appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 20-10-2000 by the High Court against which leave is sought.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the documents i.e, Khasra Girdawaris Exhs.D. 1 to 5. It has been rightly held by the learned Judge of the High Court that the documents other than Exh.D.4 related to the period prior to the date of sale-deed, therefore, the said entries are not relevant. In Exh.D.4 produced by the petitioners, the land has been shown under self cultivation of the vendor. One of the vendees namely Zulfiqar when appeared in the witness-box made statement on oath claiming himself to be the tenant over the land in dispute and did not claim that the other vendees were also the tenants. In the cross-examination, he was suggested that it was Zulfiqar son ofMachi the vendor who was in self-cultivation of the property which question was in accordance with the entry in Exh.D.4 as observed above. Zulfiqar vendee further admitted that .He brought under cultivation only one Killa after purchasing the land, therefore, it was clearly proved that none of the vendees was in possession of the land as tenant on the date of sale.
3. The findings of facts recorded by the High Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .