KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.-The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are that Muhammad and others, respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession through pre-emption to preempt the sale of land made by Musarat Jamil and Sarwat Jamil sons of Abdul Jameel Khan in favour of Nusrat vendee. The suit was resisted by Nusrat vendee and the learned trial Court after framing necessary issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.1973. The suit failed on the finding that pre-emptor/respondents were not possessed of superior right of pre-emption. On appeal of the pre- emptor/respondents, this finding was reversed and resultantly, the learned District Judge Jhang accepted the appeal and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1975. This led to the filing of the present second appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only question requiring decision in this appeal is, whether Muhammad and others the respondents were possessed of superior right of pre-emption. Besides statement of Arshad Hussain (DW.I), the documents relevant for resolving the a forenoted quuestion, are copy of RL-II (Ex.Pl) and copy of Jamabandi (Ex.D6) shows Khata No.107 as Shamlat Deh. From this Jamabandi, it is not clear whether the land of Khasra numbers in question also forms part of the said Khata or not. In view of above, this document fails to show that the land subject-matter of the suit forms part of Khata No.107. Shamlat Deh. Ex.Pl, the copy of R.L.II shows that certain khasra numbers including the land of Khasra number, subject-matter of this suit, was allotted in 1960 to one Abdul Aziz. On his death, the land got allotted by abdul Aziz was mutated in the names of Aziz Fatima, Aaz Khatoon, Musrarat Jamil and Sarwat Jamil. The ladies were allowed their share in the inheritance of Abdul Aziz and as such they became co-sharers in the land in dispute. It is also apparent from Ex.Pl that Mst. Asz Khatoon sold 51 kanals and 13 marlas vide mutation No.941 to Muhammad, Shahadat and Theraj sons of Dehana in equal shares, Sajawal and Ahmad sons of Pathana, Ahmad son of Bhatti, and Palhanal son of Mamoora vide mutation No.955 while land measuring 25 kanals and 16 marlas from the same khasra numbers was sold by Mst. Aziz Fatima in favour of Muhammad, Shahadat and Theraj sons of Dehana, Ahmad and Sajawal sons of Pathana, Ahmad son of Bhatti and Pathana son of Mamoora respondents. By virtue of these sales in the year 1969-70, these respondents became co-sharers in the specific khasra numbers. Mst. Musrrat Jamil and Mst.Sarwat Jamil there-after sold their share to Nusrat vendee vide registered sale deed dated 10.9.1970. This sale was sought to be pre-empted by filing the present suit by Muhammad and others on 9.9.1971.
3. It is apparent from the above resume of facts that Muhammad and others by virtue of purchased stopped into the shoes of MstAziz Fatima and MstAziz Khatoon who were co-sharers alongwith Mst.Musarrat Jamil and Mst. Sarwat Jamil in the land of khasra numbers in question.
Nusrat vendee resisted the suit on the plea that he being owner in Shamlat Khata No.107 was possessed of equal right of pre-emption. This plea has remained unsubstantiated as it has not been established on record that the land subject-matter of suit formed part of Shalat Khata No.107.
The respondents/pre-emptor being co-sharers in the specific khasra numbers alongwith Sarwat Jamil and Musrat Jamil vendors, were possessed of superior right of pre-emption as against Nusrat, vendee. In support of this view, reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sher Bahadur vs. Behram Khan (1988 SCM R 1735), In view of above, no justifiable exception can be taken to the view formed bv the learned appellateCourt. The finding of the learned appellate Court is, therefore, affirmed. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.' The parties are left to bear their own cost.