JUDGMENT 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. 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 judgments Exhibits P-3 andD-31, Charno got one-half share and he could gift one-half share but he gifted 1/6th share only. The lower appellate Court read this document to mean that Charno had gifted half share. There is misreading of this document also. 6. While it is true that, according to judgments Exhibits P-3 andD-31, Charno got one-half share and he could gift one-half share but he gifted 1/6th share only. The lower appellate Court read this document to mean that Charno had gifted half share. There is misreading of this document also. 6. On a correct reading of the aforesaid document and considering the other admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the only conclusion in law is that the line of Harnama got half share and the other half share went to Charno out of the estate left by Gurdit Singh in view of the judgment Exhibit P-2 which was upheld in appeal and the vendees were parties to that decree. Since Harnama was not vendor in sale-deed Exhibit D-l, his half share remained intact and was inherited by his children, i e.9 the two original plaintiffs in the suit and Shrimati Viro, out of whom one died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the remaining heirs of Harnama will get that half share and the vendees have nothing to do with it. 7. Turning to the half share of Charno, he had made the sale before the judgment Exhibit P-2 was rendered, vide sale-deed Exhibit D-l. In that sale, he joined three other persons in whose favour mutation of inheritance was sanctioned to the extent of l/6th share each. Charno and three other vendors were not clear about their title regarding the extent of their share. However, the sale was far more than half of the land left by Gurdit Singh, Each one of the vendors would be responsible to make good the sale to the extent it would be permissible in view of section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since by judgment Exhibit P-2 it was declared that Charno had half share, the sale-deed Exhibit D-l would be considered good on behalf of Charno to the extent of half share. Therefore, sale-deed Exhibit D-l would be read to be on behalf of Charno in regard to his half share and the sale for the balance i.e., in excess of half share, would not affect the rights of Harnama or his heirs. 8. Mr. Therefore, sale-deed Exhibit D-l would be read to be on behalf of Charno in regard to his half share and the sale for the balance i.e., in excess of half share, would not affect the rights of Harnama or his heirs. 8. Mr. A. S. Sandhu, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff, has argued that it should be deemed that Charno sold his one-sixth share and not half share because, according to the mutation, he was owner of one-sixth share only and the judgment Exhibit P-2 came later on. For this precise matter, section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was enacted so that if there is any dispute or defect in title and the title is made good later after the sale or the transfer of instrument, then the benefit of that will go to make the sale or the transfer as good to the extent the vendor acquires title after the transaction. 9. Once sale of half share of Charno made in the year 1964 in favour of the appellants is held to be good, nothing remained with Charno on 10-6-1970 when he made a gift of l/6th share, vide gift-deed Exhibit P-l. Since nothing was left with Charno on the date of gift out of the estate left by Gurdit Singh in view of the sale made earlier, the gift was nothing but a paper transaction and conyeved no title to the plaintiffs. Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act is clear »hat the subsequent transfers are always subject to the prior ones. Hence, on the basis of gift, the plaintiffs got no title from Charno, 10. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed to the extent that half of the land measuring 77 Kanals 13 Marlas will belong to the appellants who arc vendees from Charno and the remaining half would belong to the descendants of Harama i. e., the plaintiffs and Smt Viro defendant. How this half share is to be apportioned amongst the descendants of Harnama would be a matter of adjustment between them. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.