' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit to pre-empt the land in dispute which was described more fully in his plaint on the ground of being an owner in the Patti and also a co-sharer in the Khata. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 15-7-1974.
2. The vendee/respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order, dated 6-11-1978, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court were reversed and the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an appeal being R.SA. 945/78 but without any success as it was dismissed by the High Court on 24-4-1979.
4. The plaintiff/petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
5. The first point argued by the learned counsel was that his client was an owner in the Patti and the finding of the two Courts below to the contrary is erroneous. The contention has no merit and in this respect we need not go into the details of this matter because we think that it is sufficient for our purpose to mention that when the petitioner appeared as his own witness in the trial Court he deposed that he did not know the Patti in which the land in dispute was situated. In this state of affairs the High Court was inter alia justified in holding that when the petitioner did not make out a case for being a co-owner in any particular Patti his claim was rightly turned down. We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the High Court on the peculiar facts and the circumstances of this case. Learned counsel for this purpose, however, wanted to refer to certain Revenue record to locate the relevant Patti but we are of the opinion that this exercise in the context hereinbefore mentioned is uncalled for.
6. It is then argued that the land in dispute was originally an evacuee land which though allotted in the form of specific field numbers to the vendor (refugee) remained a joint land and the petitioner being a co-sharer in the Khata earlier with the evacuees and now with the allottee/vendor/refugee had a preferential right of pre-emption. The contention has no merit. It has been held by the High Court that by making allotment and transfer of specific field numbers to the vendor (to which no objection was taken by the petitioner at the relevant tune) the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities, actually partitioned the joint Khata, within the terms of para. 7 of Part H of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whereafter and whereunder, the vendor became its exclusive owner and the petitioner could not claim any right of joint ownership in the so allotted and transferred land. We find nothing wrong with this view which is quite in accord with the provisions of law hereinbefore mentioned.
7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.