BACHAN SINGH Vs. RAMEL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit. Three matters were agitated in appeal, namely, that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Ind Kaur vendor, that she had consented to the sale by her mother and that the land was banjar land within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and, therefore, could not be pre-empted. The lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was the daughter of the vendor, that there was no waiver by her of her right of pre-emption and that even if the land was banjar, it was not reclaimed by the vendee and, therefore, the sale of such land was open to pre-emption. The first two questions are questions of fact and the decision of the lower Appellate Court thereon is binding on me in second appeal, particularly when that decision is based on evidence. So far as the last question is concerned, it was not the vendees' case that the land had been reclaimed either before or after the sale. The Pre-emption Act, allows pre-emption with regard to agricultural land and village immovable property. Banjar land would surely fall within the ambit of village immovable property. That being so, banjar land can be pre-empted as such.

(2.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.