P L D 1965 W (PLP)

F. M. Anwari for Respondent. This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑ (1) Ahtned Din and others v. Chiragh Din Revision No. 1675. (2) Muhammad Dirt and others v. Chiragh Din Revision No. 1677. These two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 16th of May 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur whereby the revisions preferred by the respondents were accepted. The facts of the case are that, out of a joint khata measuring 45 acres, respondent Chiragh Din along with his two brothers Umaid Khan and Ali Muhammad sold 15 acres in favour of Mst. Sardar Begum and mutation No. 37 was sanctioned on 3‑9‑1959. Subsequently, the same vendors sold 10 acres to, Muhammad Din and Muhammad Sharif and mutation No. 45 was sanctioned on 25-1-1962. Later on, Chirag Din preferred two appeals before the Collector but they were dismissed. He then filed two revisions before the Additional Commissioner, and they were accepted. Hence these two second revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Additional Commissioner was influenced by the consideration that the sales for which mutation Nos. 37 and 45 were sanctioned were against the provisions of para. 25(3) of M. L. Regulation No.

64. He appears to have calculated the shares of the three joint owners separately, and therefore came to the conclusion that after sanc tioning of mutation No. 37, what was left was less than a subsistance holding. Similar considerations prevailed with him so far as mutation No. 45 was concerned. The record, however, shows that this is joint holding and has to be regarded as one unit of Person mentioned in para. 25 (3) of M. L. Regulation No. 64 include persons and joint owners. So long as the joint holding is not partitioned and all the co‑sharers make an alienation, it would be void only if after the sale, the joint holding itself is reduced to an area less than a subsistence holding. In this case, I find that after mutation No. 37,30 acres were left in the joint holding and when there was a subsequent sale under mutation No. 45, the balance left was 20 acres. This is more than a subsistence holding. It is, therefore, clear that the sales are not in contravention of M. L. Regulation No.

64. As regards merits, I find that vendors were present at the time of the sanctioning of both the mutations. It is also significant that only Chiragh Din respondent one of the three brothers (6‑sharer) has been contesting the mutations. It is, therefore, clear that so far as merits are concerned, both the sales are such for which mutations should have been sanctioned. In these circumstances, I accept both the revisions, set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that mutation Nos. 37 and 45 as originally sanctioned; shall stand. A. H. Petitions accepted.