SHER SINGH Vs. MEHAR SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated August 2, 1969, by which an appeal against the decree for possession by preemption on payment of Rs. 1,500 has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the bara in dispute was sold by Bishni, widow of Asa Singh to Sher Singh, Defendant for a consideration of Rs. 1,500, - -vide sale deed dated May 18, 1967, registered on May 19, 1967. Mehar Singh Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by pre -emption on the ground that he was the son of brother of the vendor. He, however, alleged that in fact an amount of Rs. 500 was actually paid as consideration of the bara and it was also the market value thereof. In order to avoid the preemptors, the consideration has been stated as Rs. 1,500 in the sale deed. The Defendant -vendee contested the suit and denied the preferential right of the Plaintiff and averred that the vendor inherited the property from her husband and, therefore, the Plaintiff had no superior right of pre -emption. Regarding the price, he stated that an amount of Rs. 1,500 was fixed in good faith and was actually paid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) THE only contention, which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the vendee is that the vendor got the property from her husband who left no reversioners. It was further submitted by him that the husband of the vendor was governed by the customary law. According to custom if a male dies without any reversioners, the widow gets the property not as a limited owner but as a full owner. He submits that in the present case as the last male holder Asa Singh died without any reversioners, Shrimati Bishni inherited his estate as full owner. From this, he infers that the right of preemption in the present case vests in the persons given in Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent submits that the vendor inherited the estate as a limited owner and on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Succession Act') she became full owner by virtue of Section 14 thereof. If she was the full owner of the property, Respondent No. 1 was entitled to pre -empt the sale under sub -clause 'secondly' of Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. He further submits that she inherited only limited estate and on the enlargement of estate by virtue of Section 14 of the Succession Act, she would become the full owner of the property and in that case, Sub -clause (2) of Section 15 of the Act would not apply to her property. Mr. K.S. Thapar concedes that if it was held that the widow inherited limited estate which was enlarged by Section 14 of the Succession Act, then the Plaintiff -Respondent has got a superior right of pre -emption. His sole contention is that she inherited the full estate from her husband. In that case, Sub -section (1) of Section 15 will not apply. Before I may refer to the various authorities which were cited by the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be advantageous if allegations of the parties are seen from the pleadings of the parties. In para 1, the Plaintiff states that Defendant No. 1 was owner and in possession of bara in dispute. In para 3 of the plaint, the Plaintiff states about his superior right of pre -emption which is in the following terms: