' Petitioner Rehmatullah has challenged judgment and decree, dated 6-12-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala accepting appeal of respondent No,1 Allah Rakha against dismissal of his suit by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala through judgment and decree, dated 17-12-1990. Petitioner i,e, Rehmatullah, his late brother Khuda Bakhsh, his two sisters i,e, Nawab Bibi and late Muhammad Bibi were joint owners of land measuring 68 Kanals, 14 Marlas, out of which 54 Kanals two Marlas was situate in Khewat No,168/151 and 14 Kanals, 12 Marlas in Khewat No,402 of village Vaniawala Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The two brothers Rehmatullah and Khuda Bakhsh were owners of two-third share (1/3 share each) and the two sisters Nawab Bibi and Muhammad Bibi owned 1/3 share, in the total land. Through registered sale-deed No,15082, dated 31-10-1978 Exh.P.10 Khuda Bakhsh sold land measuring 22 Kanals, one Marla from Khewat/Khata No,168 comprising (present Khewat No,208) Khasras Nos.924 (8 Kanals) 925 (8 Kanals) and 926 min (6 Kanals, 1 Marla) for a sale price of Rs,1,10,000 to Allah Rakha (respondent No,1). On the basis of this sale-deed Mutation No,18, dated 23-11-1978 was sanctioned in favour of respondent No,1, who was also inducted in physical possession of the suit land as late Khuda Bakhsh was claimed to be in actual possession of the said specific Khasra numbers through a family partition and was so recorded in the Jamabandies as well. The name of respondent No,1 was also included as owner in the Revenue Record.
2. Petitioner Rehmatullah challenged Mutation No,718, dated 23-11-1978 by a review petition which was accepted by Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala through order, dated 18-5-1986 by which 4 Kanals out of abovesaid land of 22 Kanals, one Marla purchased by respondent No,1, was excluded on the ground that in Khewat No,168 Khuda Bakhsh was joint owner of the one-third share only.
3. Respondent No,1 thereupon filed a suit seeking declaration qua is ownership in possession and against Collector's order, dated 8-5-1986 alongwith perpetual injunction. After trial, learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 17-12-1990. Espondent No,1 thereupon filed an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala by his judgment and decree, dated 6-12-1992 accepting the appeal decreed the suit of respondent No,1. This revision petition has been filed to challenge the said decree.
4. The petitioner appeared and argued his case in person and was supported by respondents Nos.2 to 18 as the case of the petitioner and that of respondents Nos.2 to 18 was joint against respondent No,1 i,e, Allah Rakha, of land from Khuda Bakhsh i,e, brother of the petitioner and respondent No,18 and predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 13 while respondents Nos.14 to 17 were also legal representatives of sister of deceased Khuda Bakhsh. Respondent No,15 being an Advocate represented his own case and that of respondents Nos.14, 16, 17 and 18. He also supported the case of the petitioner and that of respondents Nos.2 to 13, who owing to absence were proceeded against ex parte. The case of the petitioner and of all other respondents excluding respondent No,1 was that out of Khewat No,168/151 measuring 54 Kanals, two Marlas, the vendor Khuda Bakhsh deceased, at maximum could sell his one-third share in the Khata equivalent to 18 Kanals of land and could not sell 22 Kanals, one Marla wherefor excess 4 Kanals, one Marla was rightly excluded by the Collector from the mutation in favour of respondent No,l.
5. Contrarily, respondent No,1 surveyed through the documents to show that late Khuda Bakhsh was, in possession of specific Khasra Numbers 924, 925 and 926 min measuring 22 Kanals, 14 Marlas out of Khewat No,168/151 though the entire holding of the two abovesaid brothers and sisters (petitioner, respondent No,18 and predecessors-ininterest of respondents Nos.2 to 17) totally held 68 Kanals, 14 Marlas in Khewat Nos.168/151 and 402. It was further contended that admittedly out of this total holding of 68 Kanals, 14 Marlas late Khuda Bakhsh was entitled to 1/3rd share which is equivalent to about 23 Kanals which was about the land held by him in abovesaid specific Khasra Nos.924, 925, and 926 min in one Khewat i,e, 168/151. It was further contended that under the settled law, late Khuda Bakhsh was competent to sell specific Khasra numbers under his possession and transferred possession of the same to the vendee i,e, respondent No,l. As long as his possession of particular Khasra Nos. Was not in excess of his total share in the entire joint holding.
6. I have examined the record and heard the arguments advanced by the parties and their learned counsel. It is not denied that the total land holding jointly held by above-referred two brothers and two sisters 1. As about 68 Kanals, 14 Marlas and that late Khuda Bakhsh (i,e, predeces, in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 13) was entitled to one-third shar the said total holding equivalent to about 23 Kanals. It is also admit that late Khuda Bakhsh was in possession of particular Khasra numbers i,e, 924, 925 and 926 min collectively measuring as 22 Kanals a few Marlas and was shown in the Jamabandies, Khasra Girdawaris to be in possession of the said Khasra numbers. The only controverted question requiring settlement in this matter is as to whether late Khuda Bakhsh being joint owner alongwith others, was competent to sell land measuring 22 Kanals, 1 Marla comprising particular Khasra Numbers 924, 925 and 926 min to respondent No,1 through the sale-deed incorporated in the impugned mutation. This issue was settled by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 9 that:-- "The vendee of a co-sharer who owns an undivided Khata in common with another, is clothed with the same rights as the vendor has in the property, no more and no less. If the vendor was in exclusive possession of a certain portion of the joint land and transfers its possession to his vendee, so long as there is no partition between the co-sharers, the vendee must be regarded as stepping into the shoes of his transferor qua his ownership rights in the joint property, to the extent of the area purchased by him, provided that the area in question does not exceed the share which the transferor owns in the whole property. Alienation of specific plots transferred to the vendee would only entitle the latter to retain possession of them till such time as an actual partition by metes and bounds takes place between the co-sharers."
' Relying upon the above dictum, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shah Hussain v. Abdul Qayum and others 1984 SCM R 427 confirmed the legal position that:- "The sale of specific field numbers by a co-sharer in possession can, for consideration, alienate the land in possession, and if his share in such specific field numbers exceeds his share, provided it does not exceed his overall entitlement in the land, the vendee's rights would be subject to adjustment on partition."
' In the case of Mustafa Khan and 3 others v. Muhammad Khan and another reported as PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 75, Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir observed that:- "It is conclusively established that the possession of the vendor in the specific field numbers was due to family arrangement. It is true that such an arrangement does not extinguish the title of other co-sharers, but so far as the factum of such a possession and sale of the specific field numbers is concerned, it certainly debars other co-sharers to get back such possession or challenge the sale.
This is, of course, subject to adjustment at the time of partition as would have been the case if the vendor had not sold the land."
' Following the above rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent judgment of this Court pronounced in the case of Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas v. Barkat Ali and another 1999 YLR 2190, it was observed as under:-- "Law is well-settled that a co-sharer, in exclusive possession of specific field numbers, can alienate the entire field number provided the area of said field number does not exceed the entitlement of the vendor in the entire joint holdings. The effect of this sale is that the vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor and can retain possession subject to adjustment at the time of partition."
'The legal position is, thus, well-settled that a joint owner in possession of specific Khasra numbers is competent to sell the same to a vendee so long A as such joint owner/vendor does not exceed his share in joint holding.
7. The contention of the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 18 that permission to sell specific land to a joint owner is to be extended to his share in each Khata and not in the entire holding and the case should be examined from Khata to Khata cannot be accepted. Legality of sale by late Khuda Bakhsh has to be adjudged by taking into account his aggregate shareholding of one-third in the total joint land. Counter-argument, though, attractive is deceptive and fallacious and defeats the rule consistently upheld by the Courts. Khata to Khata sale of share by a vendor will only lead to fragmentation and disputes. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Khuda Bakhsh deceased validly and competently sold 22 Kanals, one Marla in his possession comprising Khasra Nos.924, 925 and 926 min to respondent No,1 through sale-deed and mutation as initially entered could not be legally reviewed by the Collector.
8. As such, impugned judgment and decree, dated 6-12-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala is upheld. This revision petition having no merit is dismissed with costs.