JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— One Mohan Lal sold to Lachman, the appellant here, shares in two villages, viz., Sarthara and Khatouta, by a sale-deed, dated the 20th December, 1900. Two suits for pre-emption were brought in respect of this sale, one by Tulshi Ram who claimed to pre-empt Sarthara, and the other by Bhola who claimed the other village. This appeal and the connected appeal No. 484 arise out of these suits. It has been found by the courts below that both Tulshi Ram and Bhola have the right to pre-empt both villages. It was for this reason contended on behalf of the vendee that as neither of them claimed the whole of the property comprised in the sale of the 20th December, 1900, the suits of both of them were not sustainable. This contention found favour in the court of the first instance, but was repelled by the lower appellate court. The contention no doubt would have been a right one if the bargain had been one and the same. 2. But I think the lower appellate court rightly held that although both the villages were sold by one sale-deed, the transaction in respect of each was distinct and separate. The sale-deed in the body of it recites the extent of the vendor's shares in the two villages and states no doubt that they were sold for Rs. 995. But at the foot of the document details are separately given. As regards the share in Khatouta it is stated that the equity of redemption in 49 acres (the numbers of the plots comprising which are specified) was sold for Rs. 395. Similarly, in regard to Sarkhara it is specified that the equity of redemption in 31 acres was sold for Rs. 600. These specifications show that there were in reality two transactions of sale viz., one of Khatouta for Rs. 395 and the other of Sarkhara for Rs. 600. The transactions were none the less distinct and separate, although they were embodied in one sale-deed. The case would have been exactly the same as if the vendor had executed two sale-deeds, each in respect of a separate village in favour of the same vendee, In case of such separate sales it could not be contended that a person whose right of pre-emption extended to both villages, would be bound to claim both of them. The case would have been exactly the same as if the vendor had executed two sale-deeds, each in respect of a separate village in favour of the same vendee, In case of such separate sales it could not be contended that a person whose right of pre-emption extended to both villages, would be bound to claim both of them. As in the present instance there were in reality two sales, neither of the plaintiffs offended against the rule that a pre-emptor must claim the whole of the property comprised in the same transaction of sale to which his right of pre-emption extends. I think the court below was right, and I dismiss this appeal with costs.