MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The appellant had filed four different pre-emption suits against four independent sale transactions in favour of respective vendee-defendants (respondents herein). After a full fledged trial of all the pre-emption suits, the suits of the appellant were dismissed for failing to establish/prove his superior right of pre-emption. The findings of dismissal of his suits were upheld by the Appellate Court and the Provisional Court. The appellant, feeling himself aggrieved, has filed the listed four appeals against the even dated judgments of his four separate Civil Revisions.
2. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that initially the property, sold through different sale deeds, comprised of one "Havaile" owned by one Mir Afzal. After his demise the property devolved upon his legal heirs. All the legal heirs, due to their family settlement, retained their separate possessions of their respective shares. The appellant being pre-emptor had also purchased specific share from the suit "Havaile" vide registered sale deed No.274 dated 11.02.2008 and registered sale deed No.798 dated 16.04.2008, copies of both were tendered in evidence.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that since he had purchased the shares of some of the legal heirs from the joint property, he has become co-owner in the "Havaili" and as such has superior right of pre-emption as "Shafi Shank".
5. The sales made in favour of the appellant as well as the impugned sales (under pre-emption) would show sale of specific areas with their separate specific boundaries. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, in the given circumstances, has no force at all. The appellant cannot be termed as a co-owner of the property as all the legal heirs were in possession of their respective shares due to family settlement which amounts to private partition and the "Haveili" as such was no more a joint property. The appellant, in the given situation, has become owner to the extent of his share he has purchased with the specific boundaries and cannot be termed as co-owner in the entire property. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant categorically admitted that he has no right of pre-emption as a "Shaf-i-Khalteit" to establish his superior right of pre-emption, the appellant now has to show that he being a "Shafi Jar" his property is lying adjacent/contiguous to the properties purchased by all the four vendees. Perusal of all the four sale deeds i.e. sale deed No.834 dated 17.04.2008, sale deed No.250 dated 11.11.2008; sale deed No.830 dated 16.04.2008 and sale deed No.2179 dated 15.11.2008 would reflect that each impugned sale deed has different boundaries from the boundaries given in the above mentioned sale deeds of the appellant. This factum clearly shows that the property owned by the appellant is not adjacent/contiguous with any of the suit property. So, the appellant cannot be termed as a preemptor having superior right of pre-emption as "Shafi Jar". The appellant having failed to establish his superior right of pre-emption was rightly non-suited by the fora below. We, in the circumstances, also find no merits in all the listed four appeals. Hence the same are dismissed with costs.