1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, dismissing the appellant's second appeal.
2. The dispute relates to Khasra No. 1226 and it originally formed part of Khasra No. 429, which consisted of an area of 13 kanals and 14 marlas. The latter Khasra number had been sub--divided into Khasra No. 1225 consisting of 10 kanals and 2 marlas and Khasra No. 1226 consisting of 3 kanals and 12 marlas. The respondents claimed that they had purchased the land from one Mst. Fakhrun Nisa, a sister of Feroz Khan, who had been recorded as a co-sharer in the shamilat of the land. The respon--dent accordingly filed a suit for possession against the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on the 19th March 1959. On appeal by the respondents, the learned Additional District Judge remanded the case to the trial Court for re-hearing of the suit. The trial Court this time decreed the suit on the 6th October 1962. The appellant preferred an appeal and the learned District Judge by his order dated the 7th May 1964, armed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The appellant's second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed and his applica-- tion for grant of a certificate of fitness for letters patent appeal was refused. The appellant, accordingly, approached this Court and obtained leave to appeal. The leave was granted to consider the question as to whether a co-owner or a co-sharer could be dispossessed without a regular partition.
3. It appears that in the Jamabandi prepared for the year 1934-35 the respondents were entered in the column of cultivation as purchasers from Mst. Fakhrun Nisa. They were also recorded at the same time as mortgagors and one Khan son of Ahmed Khan was recorded as a mortgagee in respect of the land in suit. The mortgage was redeemed by mutation No. 225 by respondent No. 1 Mst. Zuhra on the 16th August 1937, and thereafter the respon--dents were shown in the revenue papers in the khana-i-kasht as owners by purchase.
4. The appellant's case as stated in his written statement was that he had purchased the land in dispute from its owner Feroze Khan (brother of the aforesaid Mst. Fakhrun Nisa) by a registered deed dated the 30th July 1902. Later, however, the appellant appears to have said that it was his father who had purchased the land. The copy of the registered deed (Exh. D. W. 1 / l) shows that in the year 1902 one Muhammad son of Wali Muhammad bad purchased field No. 429 from one Feroz Khan to the extent of 7 kanals and 11 marlas out of four Khasra numbers including Khasra No. 429.
5. The sale deed does not show that he appellant had purchased the entire Khasra No. 429.
6. Furthermore, in the Misal-i-Haqiat of 1929-30 Muhammad was not shown to be the owner of Khasra No. 1226. This was curious for if Muhammad bad really purchased this Khasra number, his name should have appeared as the owner of the Kbasra number in the Misal-i-Haqiat. On this point all the three Courts including the High Court found that the appellant had failed to prove that he had purchased Khasra No. 1226.
7. The appellant had contended that the title of the respondents to the suit land v as not proved inasmuch as there was no mutation in their favour. This contention was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the disputed land was a part of a shamilat and therefore, the owners in the Jamabandis were to be shown as owners of the shamilat. In the khan-i-kasht the respondents sere alone shown as owners in the year 1934-35 and they were also shown to be In possession of the disputed land and prior to that Mst. Fakhrun Nisa was shown as owner and the respondents were shown as purchasers from Mst. Fakhrun Nisa.
8. These are questions of fact upon which all the three Courts have concurred. The presumptions of correctness which are attached to the entries in the Jamabandis had not been rebutted by the appellant.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the Impugned order of the High Court requires any interfer--ence by this Court. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.