' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J---This petition for leave to appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 16-54993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, arises from the facts that on 21-2-1975, Nawab Din (respondent) filed a suit for possession through pre-emption of the land measuring 14 Kanals 17 Marlas i,e., 1/2 share of Khewat No, 133, Khatuni No,201, Jaranwala, on the basis of being real brother of the vendor and co-sharer in the Khata, against Muhammad Rafi (predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners namely, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar and 5 others), in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaranwala. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed. The plaintiff appeared as P.W.2 and produced Abdul Wahab (P.W.1) in support of his case. He also tendered Exh. P-1 (copy of the mutation), Exh.P.2 (copy of the Jamabandi) and Exh. P.3 (copy of the Khasra Girdawari). In rebuttal, Muhammad Rafi (defendant) produced Rehmat Ali (D.W.1), Alauddin (D.W.2), Ahmad Din (D.W.3) and Ramzan (D.W.4). He himself appeared as D.W.5. He also tendered documents Exhs. D.1 to D.7.
The Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 21-5-1976. The appeal filed by Nawab Din, respondent/plaintiff was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed subject to the payment of sale price, on 16-1-1978. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Rafi/defendant filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed on 16-5-1993.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following points before us:--
(i) That the suit filed by Nawab Din, respondent, was barred by time. He explained that the physical possession of the suit land was delivered to Muhammad Rafi, vendee, on 18-2-1974 when the entry of the transaction of sale was made in the Mutation. Therefore, the suit which was filed on 21-2-1975 was barred by time; and
(ii) That the plaintiff has failed to prove his superior right of pre-emption.
3. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We find that the superior right of the petitioners was not specifically denied in the written statement. It was also not denied by Muhammad Rafi/defendant in his statement as D.W.5 Muhammad Rafi, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he was brother of the vendor and also co-sharer in the Khata, but he was not cross-examined on this point. Furthermore, the superior rights of the plaintiff was not challenged by the present petitioners before the High Court.
4. As regards point No, (i), we find that the sale, the subject-matter of the suit for pre-emption, was of a share in the joint Khata. As such, the land was not capable of admitting physical possession on 18-2-1974 when entry with regard to the transaction of sale was made in the mutation. This being the position, the limitation would run from the date of attestation of the mutation i,e., 26-2-1974 and not from 18-2-1974. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of force.
5. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court.
Accordingly leave to appeal is refused.