1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--In this appeal the judgment and decree of the High Court passed in second appeal in a pre-emption suit have been challenged. The suit based on right of prior purchase was initially decreed by the learned Sub-Judge Bhimber but the decree was vacated by the learned District Judge, Bhimber. It has been upheld by the High Court.
2. ' Inay at, respondent No,2, executed a sale-deed in favour of the appellant, Faiz Ahmad, in respect of land measuring'three Kanals eight Marlas under survey No,427 Khata No,18 in Khewat No,52. The sale-deed was executed on 29th August, 1988. Respondent No,1, Muhammad Siddique, filed a suit for possession on the basis of right of prior purchase of 28th of August, 1989. The suit was grounded on the claim of being a "shareek Khewat." The appellant Faiz Ahmad resisted the suit on the ground that he was also a "shareek Khewat". It was subsequently sought to be proved by Faiz Ahmad that he had also purchased the land measuring ten Marlas from the same Khewat. However when he produced evidence it transpired that he had purchased land measuring ten Marlas from khewat No, 52-min. The learned Sub-Judge held that Faiz Ahmad had proved through gift-deed Exh.DB and copy of mutation Exh.DC that he had also improved his status by becoming owner in Khewat No,52. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the gift- deed executed during the pendency of the pre-emption suit did not help Faiz Ahmad because the land which he obtained in consequence of the gift-deed was in Khewat No,52-min which was a different Khewat. The view taken by the learned District Judge has been upheld by the learned High Court in the judgment under appeal. The relevant part of the judgment of the High Court is in the following terms:-- ' "From the record placed by the respective parties, it is not shown by any evidence that the suit land and the land transferred in favour of defendant-vendee on which basis the claim of improved status is grounded, are from the same Khewat. It may be mentioned that the defendant-appellant has placed on record the gift-deed, Ext. DB accompanied by a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 BK, alongwith mutation No,51 attested on its basis. All the documents mentioned the relevant Khewat as 52-min. Therefore, it cannot be determined that the defendant-appellant improved his status by transfer of land effected in his favour."
3. ' Before us, Mr. Muhammad Rafique Dar, the learned counsel for appellant Faiz Ahmad, vehemently contended that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in upholding the view taken by the learned District Judge that the land in dispute and the land obtained through gift-deed by the appellant were situated in different khewats. He vehemently contended that Khewat No,52.Min is not an independent entity. He submitted that when land is purchased or gifted from a Khewat it is some times shown as "min" which does not mean that it is situated in a separate Khewat. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Dar also pointed out that it is incorrectly stated in the judgment of High Court that in the mutation recorded in consequence of the gift-deed Khewat number of the gifted land was shown as khewat No,52-min. He referred us to the mutation, Exh.DC, in which Khewat number is entered as 52. It was also submitted by him that the appellant had in his written statement also raised the plea of waiver and a specific issue, being issue No,5, was framed on this point but the learned District Judge and subsequently the learned Judge in the High Court did not decide this issue. He explained that the learned Sub-Judge had not decided this issue because, as stated, it was not necessary to do so since the suit was being dismissed on the ground that appellant Faiz Ahmad enjoyed equal status with the plaintiff but when this finding was set aside it became legally necessary to decide issue No,5 relating to waiver.
4. ' Repudiating the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, it was vehemently contended by Raja Muhammad Siddique Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, that it was the function of the appellant to prove that Khewat No,52 and Khewat No,52-min were one and the same but he failed to do so because there was no proof on the file that both these numbers related to the same Khewat. It was alternatively submitted by Raja Muhammad Siddique Khan that the land gifted to the appellant was under mortgage and it is not understandable as to how the appellant claims to have become an owner. He submitted that encumbered land could not give the appellant the status of a full owner.
5. ' We have perused the record. Gift-deed on which the appellant based his claim was duly proved in the evidence and is marked as Exh.DB. It shows that lnayat Khan son of Roshan resident of village Heer gifted ten Marlas of land out of survey No,170-min Khata No,217-min Khewat No,52-min as recorded in Jamabandi 1999-2000-BK. Exh.DC. Is a copy of mutation effected on 2nd February, 1994 in light of the gift-deed mentioned above. The Khewat number is shown as 52 while Khata number is 217-min. The mutation tends to show that the land gifted to the appellant was in Khewat No,52.
6. The legal position is clear that in revenue terms "min" has no independent entity and it is always a part of the main number: "Min" is an Arabic word of which the literal meaning is "from". For instance, when it is t said in literal meaning is "from". For instance, when it is said in Arabic "min janab-e- Allah" it means "from Allah's side". Similarly "min jumlah" means "from the total." Thus, literally speaking, "Khewat No,52-min" means "From Khewat No,52." The word "min" is in vogue in revenue papers since long and it has all along been used in the same sense. It is fixed connotation as recorded in "glossary of revenue words" in Punjab Settlement Manual is "portion'. The glossary can be found in every book on land revenue.
7. ' Therefore when the word 52-min was used it was meant to denote that land being gifted was in Khewat No,52 and the portion sought to be gifted was being shown as 52-min. That explains why the revenue authorities while effecting the mutation, Exh.DC, referred to the Khewat as Khewat 52 and not Khewat 52-min. There was no need of any other proof in support of the plea that land had been gifted to the appellant from Khewat No,52. The very expression "52-min" meant that the land being gifted was from Khewat No,52.
8. ' It is thus clear by obtaining land in the same Khewat the appellant became a "shareek Khewat" by improving his status after the sale-deed. The suit filed by Muhammad Siddique was based on the plea that he was "shareek Khewat". When it transpired that Faiz Ahmad was also a "shareek Khewat" it was sufficient for dismissal of the suit as was rightly done by the learned Sub-Judge.
9. ' By accepting appeal, we vacate the judgments and decrees passed by High Court and the first appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge Bhimber. The appellant will also be entitled to his costs throughout.