DOOMANU Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single judge raises the question of the construction of section 15 (2) (b) FIRST of the Punjab Preemption Act 1 of 1913 (hereafter called the Act) as amended.

(2.) Facts relevant for our purposes, as discernible from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge are that one half share of land measuring 61 kanals and 12 marlas situated in Tikka Jaunta, Mauza Pundar was sold by one Smt. Jhokbu in favour on one Mehar Chand and others for a sum of Rs 900 by means of a sale-deed dated 6th September, 1963. Doomnu, claiming a superior right of pro-emption, instituted a suit tor pie-emption, out of which this appeal has arisen. The suit was resisted on various grounds and the pleas of the parties gave rise to four issues We are here concerned only with issue No. 1 which reads as under:- "Whether the plaintiff is a step-son of the vendor and is a pint owner in the khata and as such has a superior right of pre-emption ?" The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the son of Smt. Jhokhu's husband from a previous wife and was, therefore, not covered by section 15 (2)(b) FIRST of the Act. In regard to the claim as a co-sharer also, the plaintiff's plea was negatived with the observation that no right of pre-emption has been conferred on a co-sharer by the Act when the sale is by a female. It may be pointed out that before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has very frankly dropped his client's claim of pre-emption on the basis of the status of a co-sharer and we are only concerned with the construction of section 15 (2) (b) FIRST of the Act

(3.) dissatisfied plaintiff took the matter on appeal to the Court of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who allowed the appeal and sent the case back for trial on the merits. This was done in view of the amendment of the Act by means of the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act 13 of 1964 which addd the words "husband of the" between the words "such" and "female'' in Paragraph First of clause (bl of sub section (2) of section 15 It may be recalled that the sale sought to ba pre-empted had taken place in September, 1963 and even the suit in the trial Court had been instituted sometime in October, 1963, long before the amendment.