' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 7-6-1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Regular First Appeal No,3 of 1993 filed by the petitioner against the judgment/decree dated 27-6-1989 of the learned Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib, dismissing the same in limine.
2. The brief facts are that Ahmed Nawaz, minor was joint owner to the extent of 7/8th share of land measuring 574 Kanals and 4 Marlas comprising undivided Khata number 54 Khutuni Nos.431, 433 as per Register Haqdaran 1984-85. It seems that Nasrullah, father of the above minor, acting as his guardian, sold the above share of the minor by a single sale-deed to the petitioner and Mst.
Masoom Begum, wife of Nasurullah Khan. It seems that Mst. Masoom Begum, through an agreement of sale dated 17-8-1987, agreement to sell 206 Kanals and 4 Marlas for a consideration of Rs,3,30,000 to respondents Nos.1 to 4 and delivered the possession of specific Khasra Nos.
Comprising square No,65 in the said undivided joint Khata. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed above suit for specific performance, in which the petitioner was also impleaded as defendant No,5. The abovementioned suit was decreed as follows:-- "12. As discussed above, the suit for specific performance is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No,1 in sum of Rs,5,30,000. The plaintiffs are directed to deposit the balance sale price Rs,3,30,000 within period of one month, otherwise, the suit shall stand as dismissed. Since the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land as co-sharer, so the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs shall be not of specific khasra No's but out of the joint khata to the extent of 206 Kanals and 4 Marlas owned by the defendant No,1 coupled with the possessory rights of specific Khasra No's. As for as, gift mutation in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 is concerned it shall be of no effect to the extent of 54 Kanals and 8 Marlas upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Sale-deed in favour of defendant No,5 shall remain intact. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after completion."
' The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above judgment/decree of the trial Court, filed aforesaid Regular First Appeal, which failed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit in the above terms as, according to him, the decree should have been passed in respect of the specific khasra numbers comprising square No,65, of which Mst. Masoom Begum had handed over the possession to respondents Nos.1 to 4 pursuant to the above sale agreement.
4. The above contention has been effectively dealt with by the learned Judges of the Division Bench, inter alia, in para. 6 of the impugned judgment. It may be observed that two co-sharers of joint land may be in possession of specific Khasra numbers for house, but this does not mean that the joint land has been partitioned in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Leave is refused.