1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25th January, 1977. The background is that respondents purchased land measuring 88 Kanals in Khata No. 218, Village Adhi Kot, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha vide Mutation No. 328 sanctioned on 28th August, 1970 for a sale price of Rs.11,000 from one Khan Masood Ahmad Khan. The appellant A.I Muhammad pre-empted the said sale by filing a suit in the civil Court at Jauharabad on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the same Khata with the vendor Khan Masood Ahmad Khan and therefore had a superior right of pre-emption. The suit was contested by the respondents and the trial Court framed six issues including as to whether the appellant had a superior right of pre-emption than the respondents- vendees. From the evidence produced before him by the parties, the learned trial Judge arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had miserably failed to establish that he was a co-sharer with the vendor Khan Masood Ahmad Khan in the Khata in question. Consequently, he dismissed the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree, dated 14th September, 1974. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the said judgment and decree in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sargodha who accepted the same vide judgment and decree, dated 27th May, 1976 on the ground that since the appellant had purchased some land prior to the present sale to the respondents, he was co-sharer in the same Khata and consequently had superior right of pre-emption. The respondents- vendees challenged the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court by way of R.S.A. No. 493 of 1976 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment and decree, dated 25th January, 1977 and as a result the judgment of the first appellate Court was set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was restored. The learned Single Judge held that both the appellate as well as the respondents had purchased land from the same original owner namely Khan Masood Ahmad Khan who was admittedly the sole proprietor of his Khata with no other person to share the Khata with him. The record indicated that the appellant had purchased specific fields from Khan Masood Ahmad Khan and that, therefore, it was evident that he could not possibly become a co-sharer in the Khata of the said Khan Masood Ahmad Khan. He could have only become a co-sharer if he had purchased a definite share in the Khata without any specification of the boundaries of the land purchased by him. The respondents had also purchased specific Killas in the Khata belonging to Khan Masood Ahmad Khan. The finding of fact of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court was that since the appellant as well as the respondents had not purchased an undivided share from Khan Masood Ahmad Khan neither of them could be considered as a co-sharer with the original vendor and it was immaterial as to whether the appellant had purchased land from Khan Masood Ahmad Khan from a different Khata than that of the respondents or from the same Khata.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that since the appellant had not purchased an undivided share in the property of Khan Masood Ahmad Khan he was not a co-sharer and, therefore, could not claim superior right of pre-emption. According to the learned counsel the Khasra number from which the land had been purchased by the appellant had not been partitioned and so long as this was the position, the appellant was a co-sharer with Khan Masood Ahmad Khan and had a superior right of pre-emption in the property in dispute.
3. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly specific Killas had been sold by Khan Masood Ahmad Khan of his landed property to the appellant just as he had sold specific Killa numbers of his property to the respondents. Sale of specific Killa numbers to the appellant would not make the appellant co-sharer in the property with Khan Masood Ahmad Khan. Even in para. One of his plaint before the trial Court the appellant had admitted that Khan Masood Ahmad Khan was the sole proprietor of the property in question.
4. Obviously if specific Killa numbers had been sold by Khan Masood Ahmad Khan to the appellant it would not amount to the sale of unspecified or definite share so as to make him a co-owner with Khan Masood Ahmad Khan in the said Khata. The learned second appellate Court had given a finding of fact in the instant case while arriving at the conclusion that since the appellant was not co-sharer in the Khata, K he did not have a superior right of pre-emption. This finding of fact calls for no interference. No legal point has been raised as a result this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed with costs.