ASHOK RANA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A right of pre-emption on the ground of relationship is allowed only to certain limited relations, which have been detailed specifically under section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). To pre-empt a sale made by a female, section 15(1) of the Act would be applicable unless a pre-emptor demonstrates in the plaint, how the case will fall in the exception contained in section 15(2) of the Act. Under section 15(2) of the Act, only those persons would be entitled to preempt, if they bring their case specifically within the four corners of that provision by specifically stating that sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her father or brother or the sale in respect of such land or property is by the son or daughter, of such female after inheritance or where the sale is made by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her husband or through her son, in case the son has inherited the land or property from his father. Again under section 15(2) of the Act it has specified the relation in whom the right of pre-emption shall vest :

(2.) Reverting to the merits of the case, para 5 of the plaint in the pre-emption suit was as follows :

(3.) If the plaintiff has not already pleaded all facts in the original plaint which would entitle him to get a decree for pre-emption, amendment would not be allowed after expiry of limitation because valuable right would have accrued to the vendee. As already noticed, in the original plaint the plaintiff has merely stated that he is the real cousin of one of the vendors. A reading of section 15(1) of the Act does not bring him as a real cousin in the purview of this section to give a right of pre-emption. A real cousin can be pre-emptor's father's sister's son or pre-emptor's mother's brother's son but two such real cousins have no right to pre-empt under law. Again if the pre-emptor now wants to state that he is father's brother's son of the vendor, it would be making out a new case beyond limitation. In Shanker Singh v. Chanan Singh, 1968 CurLJ 363, the term used was collateral and when the pre-emptor wanted to give the precise relationship after limitation the amendment was disallowed and the present case of the pre-emptor is no better.