' The dispute relates to the land measuring 4 kanals purchased by the appellants from one Rahim Bukhsh son of Ghulam Hussain. Claiming to be Khewatdar, the respondents filed a suit to pre empty the sale. The appellants contested the suit and resisted the respondents' claim as to their superior right of pre-emption, on the ground that they are the collaterals of the vendor.
2. Apart from the oral, evidence of the parties, the respondents relied on copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 (Exb. P. 1) and some other documents. On the other hand, the appellants produced Mutation No, 1093 sanctioned on 4th April, 1940 relating to the inheritance of one Mst.
Gohar Khatoon (Exh. D. 1). Mutation No, 1405 dated 7th August, 1945 (Exh. D. 2), copy of Register Haqdaran for the year 1967-68 (Exh. D. 3), Pedigree-table (Exh. D. 4), judgment dated the February, 1942 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Multan, appeal bearing the title Muslim etc. v. Ilahi Bukhsh etc. (Exh. D. 5) the copy of the judgment and decree dated 2nd May, 1974 passed learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Shujabad in Civil Suit No, 419/71 Bukhsh etc. v. Faiz Bakhsh (Exh. D. 6 and Exh. D.
7). The Civil Judge framed only one issue as to whether the respondent superior right of pre- emption. Relying on the documentary evidence by the vendees-appellants, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants and the vendors are the descendants of a common ancestor. Accordingly, by his judgment dated 7th July, 1975 he dismissed the respondents' suit.
3. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, was of the view that by copy of the Jamabandi (Exh. P. 1) the factum of the respondents being co-sharers in the Khata was fully established. He held that the documents Exh. D. 1 to Exh. D. 7 were not properly construed by the learned trial Court. He maintained that there was no evidence to establish the link between the appellants' father and grandfather of the vendor. He was also influenced by the statement of Allah Wasaya (D. W. 1) in cross-examination, that the appellants are `Sangi' by caste. Accordingly, by his judgment dated 24th March, 1976 he accepted the respondents' appeal, set aside the judgment and decree impugned and remanded the case to the learned trial Court with the direction that the remaining issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties be framed and disposed of accordingly. The judgment of the learned First Appellate Court has been challenged by the vendees through this appeal.
4. The only argument advanced by the appellants' learned counsel, in support of the appeal, was that the documents Exhs. D. 1, D. 2, D. 4, D. 5, D. 6 and D. 7, were misread by the learned First Appellate COW' and that the appellants' relationship with the vendor was fully proved by this documentary evidence.
5. 1 have examined the documents referred to by the learned counsel and I find myself unable to agree with him. As observed above, Exh. D. I dated 4th April, 1940 is a mutation concerning the inheritance to the estate of Mss. Gohar Khatoon. The patwari has drawn a pedigree-table on this mutation, but it does not contain the names of the appellants or that of the vendor. Exh. D. 2 is another mutation which was sanctioned on the strength of the judgment dated 1st August, 1944 passed by the High Court in the appeal relating to the estate of Mst. Gohar Khatoon. It may be observed that a mutation is not part of) record of rights to which presumption of correctness is attached under section 52 of the Land Revenue Act. Though, under this mutation the property was shown to have devolved on Rahim Bakhsh and the appellants, yet this document itself gives no indication that the appellants are the collaterals of Rahim Bukhsh vendor. Pedigree-table Exh. D. 4 does not connect the appellants with Rahim Bakhsh through a common ancestor. In fact, the name of the grandfather of the appellants and that of the vendor is not given therein. As regards Exh. D. 5, D. 6 and D. 7, the respondents were not parties to these judgments. It is well established that the evidence recorded in a case not inter-parties and the findings given therein cannot affect the decision of another case. Reference in this connection may be made to Nur Elahi v. The State etc. (1). Even otherwise, there is nothing in these documents to conclusively establish that the appellants and the vendor are the descendants of a common ancestor.
6. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge in h that the appellants failed to establish their relationship with the v are thus well founded and the view taken by the learned trial Co erroneous. The findings on the solitary issue framed by the learned Court having been reversed, the case was rightly remanded for form tion and determination of other issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The judgment under appeal is in conformity with law and does not call for interference.
' There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(I) PLD 1966 SC 708