A transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property, and all the interest which the transferor may afterwards acquire therein, unless a different intention is expressed in the transfer.

Gokal Chand Mital, J-—Gurdit Singh died issueless on 27-12-1959 leaving behind 77 Kanals 13 Marlas of land. In 1963, mutation of inheritance was recorded in favour of his collaterals (Ishar Singhs) widow and five children. According to the mutation, his collaterals widow and five children got one-sixth share each. On 17-11-1964, the widow of the collateral and three of her children sold 42 Kanals 14 Marlas of land out of the estate inherited from Gurdit Singh, in favour of Gurmej Singh and others, the appellants in this appeal (vide sale deed Ex. D-l, Ex. D-4 being copy thereof. Out of the five children of the collateral, who had succeeded Gurdit Singh, two were males and three were females. In the sale, Charno was one of the male heirs. The other male heir was Harnama who had not joined in the sale-deed. After the sale, Harnamas three children filed a suit for possession of three-eighth share out of the estate left by Gurdit Singh on the plea that only Charno and Harnama succeeded to Gurdit Singh in equal shares. To that suit, the vendees, the vendors and the other persons, in whose favour the mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned, were impleaded as defendants. Harnama bad another son Jarnail Singh who was also impleaded as a defendant. According to the plaint, this Jarnail Singh had succeeded to I/8th share whereas Charno had succeeded to the remaining one-half share. By judgment and decree dated 27-1-1966 (Exhibit P-2 is the copy thereof), the suit was decreed after recording a finding that only Charno and Harnama had succeeded and, since Harnama bad left four heirs, it was held that the plaintiffs got 3/8th share and the balance of I/8th share went to Jarnail Singh. The vendees appeal was dismissed on 3-4-1968 by the first appellate Court, copy of which is Exhibit D-31. That matter became final.

2. On 10-6-1970 Charno made a gift of l/6th share in favour of Makhan Singh and Jarnail Singh, sons of Harnama, vide Exhibit P- . On 23-4-1971, the aforesaid two surving sons of Harnama filed a suit, out of which this appeal has arisen for joint possession of 5/6th share out of the estate left by Gurdit Singh on the following basis.

3. One-half share on the basis of gift, dated 10-6-1970 and the rest on the basis of inheritance. One-sixth share was to go to their sister Smt. Viro who was impleaded as a defendant. By judgment and decree, dated 5-2-1974, the trial Court decreed the suit for one fourth share on the basis of interitance in favour of Makhan Singh as, by then, Jarnail Singh had died. Makhan Singh plaintiff filed an appeal and the vendees filed Cross- Objections. The lower appellate Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 15-3-1977, granted decree to Makhan Singh for 4/12th share, half on the basis of the gift and the remaining on the basis of inheritance because Jarnail Singh had died without leaving wife or children. This second appeal has been filed by the vendees.

4. Mr, M. L. Sarin, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the vendees, has argued that the two documents sale-deed Exhibit D-l and the gift deed Exhibit P-l have been misread by the lower appellate Court. According to the learned Counsel, there is no mention in the sale-deed Exhibit D-l that Charno sold l/6th share. A reading of the document shows that all the vendors has sold ail what they owned in the land inherited from Gurdit Singh. The lower appellate Court read the sale-deed to mean that each of the vendors was selling l/6th share. On a reading of the document, I find that the lower appellate Court clearly misread the same because there is no mention that l/6th share each was being sold. On the contrary there is clear recital that whatever they inherited from Gurdit Singh is being sold.

5. A reading of gift-deed Exhibit P-l shows that Charno had gifted only l/6th share in the land measuring 77 Kanals 13 Marlas whereas the lower appellate Court has read that he gifted half of the share in the aforesaid land. While it is true that, according to judgm