' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6- 4-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Regular Second Appeal No,547 of 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ghulam Rasool, predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos.1 to 12, filed a suit to pre-empt the suit-land, measuring 94 Kanals 13 Marlas, situated in Mauza Sheikhpur Janubi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh. The land in question was sold to the petitioners (defendants) through single registered sale-deed dated 8-101963. The claim of Ghulam Rasool (deceased), in the suit, was that he was owner in the estate as well as co-sharer in the Khata. The petitioner (defendant) filed separate written statements and stated that sale in question was not pre-emptible because land in sale was evacuee property under the evacuee laws. Objections to the court-fee were raised, the trial Court settled the issues, and decreed the suit. The petitioners (defendants) preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh vide judgment and decree dated 6-2-1969. As a consequence of which suit of the respondents (plaintiffs) was dismissed. Ghulam Rasool etc., approached the High Court and filed the appeal which was allowed and their suit was decreed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that High Court has erred in law in holding the sale indivisible, as sale-deed Exh.P.1 clearly specifies the shares of two sets of vendees and further that contribution made by each vendee is specified in the two mutations sanctioned in favour of two sets of vendees and that finding of the High Court that separate shares and separate price paid by each vendee must be mentioned in the sale-deed is not tenable and contrary to law.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely examined the record. Sale-deed Exh.P.1 shows that the area which was sold to respondent was identifiable by means of specified Khasra numbers. The vendees had also made a lump sum payment of the sale consideration to the vendor. It is also clear from record that entire consideration for the total measuring of land was paid jointly by the vendees to the vendor in lump sum, as such the sale in question, in any case, was indivisible.
5. Furthermore, in the absence of superior right of the petitioners, the entire sale was pre-emptible.
The contention of the learned counsel that although the sale was effected through single sale- deed, but two separate mutations were made, one bearing No,439 Exh.D.1 in favour of defendant No,1 and the other bearing No,441 Exh.D.2 in favour of petitioners Nos.2 to 7, therefore, the sale was divisible in view of the above mutations. The argument of the learned counsel in any case is not tenable and cannot be accepted because registered sale-deed Exh.P. I was earlier registered.
Subsequently, mutations in any case will not help the case of the petitioners (defendants). During the course of arguments, learned counsel referred to the case of Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others PLD 1968 SC 140. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present petition, conscious perusal of this precedent shows that it also supports the case of the respondents and it would be advantageous to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the said case, which are as follows:-- ' "This argument cannot, however, be accepted in the absence of any proof that payment of the price was made by the various vendees of this group in specified amounts. There can be no presumption as to the divisibility of the transaction merely on the basis of the recital in the deed that the vendees took the property in specified shares if the consideration was mentioned as a lump sum.
' Learned counsel . Has, of course, not been able to cite any authority in support of his view but there are two decisions at least, one of the Lahore High Court and another of the Allahabad High Court, to the contrary. Thus in the case of Maghi v. Narain and others 1914 PR 18 a Division Bench held that where the purchase money for a sale is paid in a lump sum without specification of the amounts paid by each of the vendees, the transaction must be regarded as indivisible, though the shares to be taken by the various vendees may have been specified in the deed. Similarly in the case of Ram Nath and others v. Badri Narain and others ILR 19 All. 148 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court remanded the case for the trial of the following issue:- ' "What was the true price paid by each vendee?"
' This was done, because the deed of sale, in that case, showed only the share sold to each of the five vendees but gave no specification of the proportion in which the purchase money was paid by the respective vendees. The purchase money, according to the deed, as in the present case, was stated as lump sum for the whole area sold."
6. We do not find misreading or non-reading of the evidence, or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment, which is based on the law laid down by this Court, and is not open to exception.
7. This petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed alongwith the listed application, and leave declined.