1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This appeal by the leave of the Court challenges the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the suit filed by the appellant for possession of land through preemption was dismissed.
2. ' Mehdi and Muzaffar, sons of Ahmad Khan sold land measuring 8 Kanals situated in village Gharera of Tehhsil Gujrat to the respondents. The appellant challenged the sale and filed suit for possession through pre-emption claiming to be a collateral of Mehdi and Muzaffar and also a co- sharer in the Khata of which the land in dispute formed part. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. However, on appeal it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge with the finding that the appellant had not been able to establish his superior right. The appellant filed second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. Leave was granted to consider whether the appellant as well as the vendors were descendants of one Taj Muhammad and further was the appellant a co-sharer in the Khata of which the land in dispute formed a part.
4. ' Mr. Mian Sher Alam, the learned ASC contended that from Jamabandi Exhs.P5 and P6, the appellant was a co-sharer of the land and had thus superior right over the respondents. It may be mentioned that the learned trial Court decreed the suit only on the ground that the appellant was collateral of the vendors and no finding was given on the question whether he was a co-sharer of the land. The learned Additional District Judge after examining and discussing the evidence, which was not done by the learned trial Court, came to a different conclusion. Even in that judgment the question of being co-sharer of the land was not considered and therefore it would be proper to presume that this issue was not pressed before the two Courts below. However, in the impugned judgment there is a discussion relating to Exh. P5 and P.6 and the following observation was made: "As regards the other ground for pre-emption mentioned in the plaint, there is no evidence even worth the name led with regard to the estate having been divided into Patiis and Tarafs for the purposes of the Preemption Act and, hence, whereas the plaintiffs name does not appear in the copy Exh.P.6, on the basis of copy Exh.P.5 he has succeeded in proving himself to, at best, be an owner of the estate but, as against it, the four vendees are also prove on the basis of Jamabandi Exh.D.1 relating to the year 1%3-64 to be the owners of the estate, recorded therein on the basis of Mutation No,3261 (Exh.D.3) sanctioned on 2811-1959 with regard to Khasra No,273 and since the sale in suit is mentioned in para. 1 of the plaint to have been made on 18-1-1963, therefore, the vendees enjoyed equal status with the plaintiff on the date of the sale."
5. We have examined Exhs.5 and 6 with the help of learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show from Exh.P.6 how the appellant can claim to be co-sharer in the land as observed by the learned Single Judge. From Exh.P.5 and Exh.D.1 it seems that both the appellant and the respondents are the owners of the estate and have thus equal status. In the face of these facts and findings, the appellant cannot have a superior right. The appeal is dismissed.