MANSU Vs. SHADI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant having died, application for substitution is allowed.

(2.) The appellant before us (now represented by his heirs and legal representatives) is the plaintiffpre-emptor. The respondent on the other side is the vendee. The suit property was sold by a set of cosharers, males as well as females. The appellant staked claim to the suit property in exercise of his right of pre-emption based on tenancy. The respondent resisted the suit contending that since the vendors were the males and females, the share of the female vendor was not pre-emptable in terms of Section 15(2) of the Punjab pre-emption Act as applicable to the State of Haryana. And further, if the sale by female vendors was not pre-emptable, he as a successors-in-interest became a co-sharer in the suit land, and as such he had a superior right over the plaintiff under Section 5(1) of the aforesaid Act.

(3.) The Trial Court as also the lower appellate Court went into oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in comming to the firm conclusion that the appellant being a tenant had a superior right of pre-emption in preference of the respondent. The High Court allowed the second appeal of the vendee-respondent and dismissed the (sic) of the appellant, on the premise that when part of the sale effected by female vendors was not pre-emptible under Section 15(2) then the vendee, as a co-sharer in his own right, had a right to pre-empt the sale may be by the male vendors under Section 15(1) of the Act. It is this view of the High Court which has been put to challenge before this Court.