' This revision petition shall also dispose of Revision Petition No, 1773 of 1986 as both of them have been filed by rival pre-emptors against the same judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court.
2. The suit land was situated in Khata number 56 when it was sold through sale-deed dated 4-4- 1977 which comprised Khatuni number 118 khasra numbers 135, 136, 137, 142 and 146 measuring 27 kanals 4 marlas situated in Mouza Kot Peru Shah, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The petitioners in this revision petition as also Mst. Sakina Bibi, etc. Petitioners in C.R. No: 1773 of 1986 both filed two separate suits to pre-empt the said sale. The case of the petitioner was that he was co-sharer in Khata from where the land was sold as also a collateral of the vendors. Mst. Sakina Bibi, etc. Claimed superior right of pre-emption on the ground that they were owners of the estate. The learned trial Court through judgment and decree dated 15-9-1985 dismissed the suit of the petitioner and decreed that of Mst. Sakina Bibi, etc. The matter was brought before the learned lower appellate Court in appeal. The learned lower appellate Court after considering the documentary evidence recorded a finding that the petitioner was not owner of Khata but was proved to be owner of estate. Mst. Sakina Bibi, etc. Were also found to be owners of the estate therefore the learned lower appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 15-3-1986 decreed the suit of both the sets of pre-emptors in the ratio of their holdings in the estate. This judgment and decree has been assailed in these revision petitions by both the sets of pre- emptors.
3. The main burden of argument presented by the learned counsel for Mst. Sakina Bibi, etc. Was that since the right of pre-emption was claimed by the petitioner Abdul Latif on the ground of co- sharer in Khata and that ground was found to have not been proved therefore he could not have been granted decree on the ground that he was owner of the estate as the said ground is absolutely different and contradictory to the ground of co-sharership.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for Abdul Latif petitioner argued that he had superior right of pre-emption being co-sharer in Khata, therefore, decree should have been passed in his favour for the entire land and the suit filed by Mst. Sakina Bibi should have been dismissed.
5. I have gone through the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on the record and examined the findings of the learned lower appellate Court. It is manifest from Exh. P.3 that land in dispute was sold from Khata number 56, Khutuni number 118. This Khata had another Khutuni number 119 comprising Khasra numbers 1103, 1137, 1138, 1139 and 1140. Through Exh.P1 a registered sale-deed dated 24-4-1976, the petitioner Abdul Latif purchased the land comprising Khatuni number 119 of Khata No,56 w,e,f. The said date he can safely be held to have become co-sharer in Khata number 56. It is clearly established from Exh. P2 which is a copy of register of rights for the year 1977-78 that this Khata number 56 was split up and the land comprising in Khatuni number 119 of this Khata which was purchased by petitioner Abdul Latif was taken out of it and included in a new Khata number 58. All the Khasra numbers comprising in Khutuni number 119 of Khata number 56 have been transferred to Khata number 58. In the presence of this documentary evidence of unimpeachable character it was rightly held by the learned lower appellate Court that the petitioner Abdul Latif was no longer co-sharer in Khata. Learned counsel for Abdul Latif petitioner could not dispute legal proposition that it was on the date of sale as also the suit and even up to the date of decree by the learned trial Court that the petitioner had to retain the status as co- sharer. The sale having taken place on 4-4-1977 and in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Exh. P2 the land purchased by the petitioner comprising Khatuni number 118 of Khata number 56 having been transferred to Khata number 58, therefore, he did not retain the superior right of preemption on the ground of co-sharership. However, he was rightly held to be owner of the estate. If on the basis of sale-deed Exh. P1 the petitioner Abdul Latif pleaded superior right of pre-emption considering himself to be the co-sharer of Khata, he could certainly be granted decree on the basis of same documentary evidence as owner of the estate which status he acquired due to the transfer of his land from Khata No,56 of Khata number 58. Even otherwise, I do not agree with the learned counsel for Mst Sakina Bibi, etc. That in these circumstances the decree in favour of Abdul Latif petitioner as owner of estate was passed on inconsistent or contradictory plea.
6. Learned counsel for both the sets of petitioners have failed to satisfy me that judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court suffers from any material irregularity and illeglity as no material produced in evidence has been shown to have been misread or misconstrued. The revision petitions fail which are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.