NAZIR AHMAD Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ In this petition for special leave to appeal the principle of sinker has been applied and it has been held that Nazir Ahmad, one of the vendees, who had a right equal to that of the pre‑emptors, had lost the same by joining strangers in the sale.

2. It is contended that the sale was divisible and for that reason the share of Nazir Ahmad was separable.

3. After going through the sale‑deed we are unable to accept this contention. Although the shares of the different vendees have been specified in the deed, yet they paid the price in lump sum and purchased the land on share basis and not field‑wise.

4. It is also contended that the learned High Court was no right in rejecting their prayer for additional evidence. This contention is also without any merit, for, no explanation has been offered why the evidence which was sought to be produced in the High Court of the first time was not tendered before the trial Court.

5. No other point has been raised. This petition is dismissed.

M.I./N‑82/S Petition dismissed.