1. The facts in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are that 121/2 bighas of land were sold by three joint owners, Ind Kaur, the widow, and Balkar Singh and Nichhatar Singh two sons of Tarlok Singh. The sale was preempted by the present respondents Bakhwant Singh and Mohinder Singh, minor sons of another wife of Tarlok Singh named Karam Kaur.

2. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had a right of pre-emption under Section 15 (1)(c), secondly, of the Punjab Preemption Act as amended in 1960 in respect of the two-thirds shares of the land sold by their half-brothers and that the price paid was Rs. 3,200.00 and not Rupees 5,000.00 as showed in the sale deed, but a decree was nevertheless passed for possession of the two-thirds of the land on payment of Rs. 3,200.00.

3. The plaintiffs appealed regarding the dismissal of the suit relating to one-third share of Ind Kaur and cross-objections were filed by the vendees in which inter alia they disputed the plaintiffs right of pre-emption. The defendants cross-objections were accepted by the learned District Judge who dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption. This was based on the finding that it was not proved that their mother Karam Kaur was legally wedded to Tarlok Singh. When the plaintiffs appeal came before the learned Single Judge he found it necessary to obtain a report from the trial Court on the question whether the plaintiffs were the legitimate sons of Tarlok Singh, which had never been placed in issue at the trial. The correctness of the report of the lower Court to the effect that Tarlok Singh had married Karam Kaur as his second wife and that the plaintiffs were his sons born in wedlock is not now disputed. The learned Single Judge further found that while he could not go into the finding of the lower Court to the effect that the payment of Rs. 1,800,00 a few days before the registration of the sale deed was not proved, there was a finding that the market value of the land was Rs. 400.00 per bigha and that therefore the ostensible price of Rs. 5,000.00 represented the market value of the land. He also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to pre-empt the sale of the whole of the land including the share of Ind Kaur, this being on the basis of the decision of Gurdev Singh J. in Nathi Singh V/s. Lakhmi Chand. R.S.A. No. 1616 of 1960, D/-20-3-1962 (Punj). This decision has subsequently been upheld by Dulat and R.P. Khosla JJ. in L.P.A. No. 270 of 1962 D/-21-5-1965 (Punj). He accordingly granted the plaintiffs a decree for the whole of the land in suit on payment of Rs. 5,000.00 and the present appeal is by the vendees.

4. On behalf of the appellants it has been contended that the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption at all, or alternatively, that even if they had a right to pre-empt the shares of their half-brothers, they could not in circumstances pre-empt the sale so far as it concerned the share of Ind Kaur. By the amendment introduced in 1960 section 15 of the old Act was remodelled and apart from the fact that a right of pre-emption based on consanguinity was generally cut down to the closest relations, sales by sole owners were separated from sales by all the joint owners of joint property and a new Sub-section (2) was introduced to deal with sales b\ females or their children, an amendment on these lines being necessary consequence of the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 by which so-called widows estates were converted into full ownership.

5. The present sale is by all the joint owners and the plaintiffs right of pre-emption was based on secondly in Sub-section (1) (c) "brothers or brothers sons of the vendors" It was contended that the plaintiffs are not brothers, but only half-brothers of two of the vendors. On the point T have no hesitation in holding, even in the absence of any authority, that in this context where a landowner has sons by more than one wife all the sons are brother