' In Suit No, 27/1 of 1984 a sale of some 16 Kanals land in Khasra No,999, Khata No,68/133 in the estate of Koper, Malakand protected area made jointly in favour of Haji Umar Khan and 7 others was pre-empted by Jehanzeb and Jehangir on grounds of cosharership, contiguity and participation in immunities and appendages. The vendees, herein the petitioners, had claimed the exemption of sale from right of pre-emption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 and the Courts below had disallowed exemption as claimed since in his own statement Haji Umar Khan had admitted that an area of 4 Kanals had already been purchased by them, which was in their possession. Haji Umar Khan had admitted that the plaintiffs were contiguous owners of the suit land, however, still their right of pre-emption was not acknowledged.
2. As far as the purchase of 4 Kanals area in the suit Khata is concerned only defendant-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased the said land vide an unregistered sale deed dated 20-11-1978. Even if defendant-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had become co-owners of the suit Khata on the strength of the said sale in their favour they have, however, joined petitioners Nos. 3 to 8 with no right of pre- emption as co-pre-emptors and as such they 'shall be deemed to have lost their preferential right under the doctrine of sinker as envisaged under section 19 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950.
Not that the latest law as laid down in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 85-8/83 and 9-P/84 decided on 24-3-1987 provides that it will not make a difference if there are more than one vendee jointly purchasing a land since under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 only a sale has been exempted from the right of pre-emption and in the absence of evidence that each vendee has taken a separate share and also separately paid the price for his share the sale could not be broken up into as many sales as the vendees for the purpose of allowing them the benefit of section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. In the case in hand n such evidence has been led at the trial, rather on the contrary Ha" Umar Khan petitioner No,1 was found having joined his three sons and four grand-sons with him in the joint purchase, also stating that he had paid the price and that he was in possession of the suit land.
' That being the position the defendant-petitioners could not claim the benefit of exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 in respect of the sale of the suit land falling in excess of 2 Kanals area. Consequently there has been found no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.