JUDGMENT

Addison, J. - The site in dispute, along,; with other land situated inside the abadi of Tarn Taran, was entered in the usual consolidated list as belonging to the Sri Darbar Sahib, Tarn Taran. Two persons,. Bhag Mal and Sohan Singh, put in a petition claiming that they were owners of a. particular plot by purchase. Mahant Ganesh Das and Jumma and Dittoo, two leper, having sold it to them and one Jawand Singh, under two sale deeds, dated the 1st September 1921. The Sikh Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee and the local Committee of Management pleaded that the property originally belonged to the. Darbar Sahib and was given by it to the lepers who, however, had no right to sell. They further pleaded that, if the sale was held to be good, the Darbar Sahib-having succeeded to the rights of the lepers in the site in dispute by virtue of a deed dated the 7th June 1923, was entitled to the unpaid price still in deposit with the petitioners. It may be mentioned that there is a belief that lepers who bathe in the tank of the Darbar Sahib are cured thereby. For this reason a large colony of lepers reside near the Dar-'bar Sahib, the land claimed by the petitioners being part of the land where this colony is situated. The colony is managed by a Mahant. It was this Mahant "Ganesh Das and his chela Gajjan Singh who relinquished all rights in favour of the Darbar Sahib on the 7th June 1923. As already stated Mahant Ganesh Das and two other lepers sold to the petitioners and Jawand Singh the land in dispute on the 1st of September 1921. The tribunal held that the Darbar Sahib had not established that it was the owner of the property in dispute. It further held that under the deed of relinquishment the Darbar Sahib had succeeded to the right of the Mahant and the lepers and was therefore entitled to the sum of Rs. 1,800 from the petitioners. A decree was, therefore, passed to the effect that the Darbar Sahib was not the owner of the property but entitled to a lien on it to the extent of Rs. 1,800 on the petitioners' -share of the property sold. Against this decision the petitioners, Bhag Mal and Sohan Singh, have preferred this appeal.

2. The first argument advanced on behalf of the appellants was that it had been established that the two petitioners had paid their share of the purchase money and that nothing more was due from them. There is no force in this argument. The sale was to three persons in certain shares, but the vendors obviously have a lien on the land for the unpaid money against all and are not concerned with the proportion paid by the various co-sharers. The next argument was that the Tribunal had only jurisdiction to decide whether the Darbar Sahib was or was not the owner of the property but had not jurisdiction to go into the question of lien. There is also no force in this argument. The remaining rights in the land are now vested in the Darbar Sahib which stands in the shoes of the original vendors. The original |vendors had a lien to the extent of the unpaid purchase money and to this lien the Darbar Sahib has succeeded. In my Judgment the decision of the Tribunal must be affirmed and I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Agha Haidar, J.

3. I agree.