' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the judgment of District Judge, Faisalabad, was affirmed.
2. By a registered deed dated 4-6-1977 one Muhammad Khan sold his shares out of two joint Khatas, namely, Khatas Nos. 118 and 119, in the Jamabandi for the yeai 1973-74 of Chak No,569/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, to two brothers, namely, Muhammad Ramzan Khan and Habib Ullah Khan, sons of Dilas Khan , for a sum of Rs,30,000. On 20-11-1977 the respondent brought a suit for pre-emption.
He claimed that he was a co-sharer and as such he had superior right to acquire the land. The suit was defended by the vendees with the assertion that they too were co-sharers in the two Khatas and, further, at the time of the sale they were occupying the land purchased by them as tenants.
The learned trial Court upheld their plea that they were tenants in the land in dispute at the relevant time; accordingly, it rejected the claim of the respondent that he had the superior right of pre-emption.
3. From the judgment of the trial Court the respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge reappraised the evidence. He found that the revenue record placed before him did not support the vendee's claim that they were tenants in the land in dispute. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. From the judgment of the District Judge the vendees preferred an appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge affirmed the findings of the learned District Judge and dismissed the appeal. The vendees have come in appeal to this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High Court as well as the learned District Judge misread the revenue record and ignored the oral testimony while upsetting the findings of the trial Court that the vendees were tenants over the land in dispute. He further claimed that the vendees were also co-sharers in the two Khatas.
5. The revenue record has not been added to the paper-book. However, counsel for the parties have placed copies of the relevant Jamabandis and the Girdawaris before us. In the Jamabandi for the .Year 1973-74 which is the relevant one the respondent has been shown as one of the co- owners in Khatas Nos.118 and 119, but the names of the vendees do not appear in the column of ownership. In the circumstances the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the vendees were co-sharers in the two joint Khatas must be rejected as without any basis.
6. The land falling in Khata No,118 was part of squares Nos.22 and 3. The whole of square No,22 was not included therein. On the other hand, Khata No,119 covered the entire square No,27. In the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 the vendees are not shown as tenants either in Khata No,118 or in Khata NQ.
119. In the Khasra Girdawari starting from Kharif 1974 and ending in Rabi 1977 the vendees are not shown as tenants into those portions of squares Nos. 22, 3 and 27 which fell in Khatas Nos. 118 and
119. No doubt they have been cultivating some Killas of square No,22 but these Killas were not parts of the said two Khatas. The High Court and the learned District Judge were therefore right in holding that the vendees had not been able to establish that they were tenants in the land sold to them.
7. In support of their claim of being tenants the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the oral statements of Patwari Nazir Ahmad and the respondent. Though these two persons did admit that the vendees were cultivating portions of square No,22 but from their statements it is difficult to infer that the portions under their tenancies were included in Khatas Nos.118 and 119. Thus the vendees cannot take advantage of the said admissions.
8. Muhammad Khan, vendor, was examined by the vendees as one of their witnesses. He did support their case but then his testimony finds no support from the revenue record. In the circumstances we find no basis, for interfering with the finding of the District Judge which was affirmed by the High Court that the vendees were neither co-owners nor tenants in the Khatas of which the land purchased formed a part and that they did not possess a superior right as against the respondent who was undoubtedly a co-owner in the two joint Khatas. Thus, the respondent's suit was rightly decreed by the learned District Judge. We would accordingly dismiss this appeal but leave the parties to bear their own costs.