1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court arises out of a pre- emption matter. Leave to appeal was granted as follows:-- "By registered sale-deed the petitioners alongwith respondents No, 3 to 6 purchased about 84 kanals and 6 marlas of agricultural land. In the sale deed the share of petitioners was stated to be one-half and the share of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 was described to be the other half. The sale gave rise to two pre-emption suits; one filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other brought by respondent No,
7. The suits were defended by the petitioners and respondents No, 3 to 6. The case of the petitioners was that they were tenants in the land in dispute and as such they had a better right to retain the land. Before the trial Court it was not disputed that at the time of the sale, the petitioners were cultivating the land as tenants. However, it was found that respondents No,3 to 6 were strangers. The petitioners' defence of being tenants was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that by joining respondents No, 3 to 6 in the sale they had relegated themselves to the status of non-tenants.
2. ' The trial Court found that both sets of pre-emptors were collaterals of the vendors but that respondents No, 1 and 2 were more closely related to him than respondent No,7; accordingly, it decreed the suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and directed them to deposit the purchase money by a specified date. It also directed that in case they failed to comply with this direction their suit would stand dismissed and that of respondent No,7 would be decreed. However, respondents Nos.1 and 2 did deposit the purchase money within the specified time. Respondent No, 7 has now completely dropped out of the proceedings.
3. ' The petitioners alone filed an appeal from the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Additional District Judge, Gujrat. They again agitated the plea that being tenants in the land in dispute they had a better right than respondents Nos.1 and 2 to acquire the land. The learned Additional District Judge rejected their contention on the same ground which had prevailed with the trial Court, that is, by joining non-tenants with them in the sale they had sunk down to the position of non-tenants. From the judgment of the Additional District Judge, the petitioners a revision petition before the High Court but it failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is contended that in the sale-deed the shares of the petitioners and of respondents No,3 to 6 were specifically mentioned, even though it was not stated therein that they had also separately contributed towards the purchase price, but evidence was led at the trial that both sets of vendees had separately paid their own parts of the sale price. In the circumstances, the sale-deed recorded two separate and distinct transactions. Reliance was also placed on section 46, Transfer of Property Act which states that where immovable property is transferred for consideration by persons having distinct interest therein, the transferees are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to share in the consideration equally, where their interests in the property were of equal value, and where such interests were of unequal value, proportionately the value of their respective interests. In the circumstances, it is argued that the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts erred in holding that the plea of being tenants in the land in dispute was not available to them to defeat the superior claim set up by respondents No,1 and 2.
5. ' The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination."
6. ' The crucial question is whether the transaction of sale involved in this case could be and/or was in fact made up of two severable transactions. Admittedly, accordingly to sale-deed both the sets of vendees; namely, the appellants on the one hand and respondents No, 3 to 6 on the other purchased the total area in question--50% each. The next question is: whether they also contributed the price/sale consideration in the same ratio. We with the help of the learned counsel of both sides have gone through the evidence. The registered deed is absolutely clear that both sets of vendees had taken one-half of the land each--no more no less. An inadvertent mistake in one of the sentences of the statement of a witness in this behalf showing the share of respondents No,3 to 6, an iota less than the share of the appellants was an innocent inadvertent calculating mistake. The remaining statement as held is consistent with the entries in the-registered deed. The dispute only is with regard to the share of the sale consideration. While in the registered deed, according to learned counsel, one way of reading it would show that the amount of Rs, 80,000 was not divided into Rs, 40,000 each, according to the appellants' reading it was obviously mentioned that both the sets of vendees had paid the consideration also 50 per cent each. Even if there is some cloud in this behalf visible to the learned counsel for the respondents, which we remain unable to discover, the same got shed-off by elaborate statements made in that behalf which were subjected to piercing questioning. We are satisfied that in this sale not only the share of each set of vendee is specified but also the amount paid towards the price by each of these sets is also specified. Accordingly the transaction relatable to the appellants was separate and severable. The rule laid down in Mir Ahmed v. Attaullah alias Atta Muhammad (PLD 1991 SC 210) stands satisfied.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent the land purchased by the appellants; namely, one-half share of the total transaction. The remaining one-half share of the total transaction shall remain with respondents/successful pre-emptors. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.