CHANDER Vs. CHAO KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants arises out of a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. Khem Chand was the owner of the suit land. On his death, his son Ved Parkash and his widow Devi Bai inherited the same. Both of them sold the disputed land for Rs. 3,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 26th October, 1966. This sale was sought to be pre-empted by the present plaintiff-appellants under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (hereinafter called the Act) claiming themselves to be the tenants on the land. The defendant-vendee took the plea in the written statement that the plaintiffs were not the tenants before or at the time of sale and their superior right of pre-emption was denied. The plea of partial pre-emption was also raised by them. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(2.) In this appeal, the short question is whether the sale in dispute is covered by Section 15(1) or Section 15(2) of the Act. It has been held by this Court in Santa Singh v. Hazara Singh and others,1965 PunLR 132, that where males and females effected sale of a joint holding and they had sold their respective shares, the sale must be treated so far as by the females was concerned pre-emptible under Section 15(2) of the Act. This authority was followed in Amar Nath v. Shrimati Nirmal Kumari and others, 1973 PunLJ 321. In this case also the sale was jointly made by the males and females and it was held that the sale is covered by Section 15(2) and not by sub-section (1) of Section 15 as regards the share of the female is concerned. As regards the share of the male Ved Parkash, the vendees on purchase of the land of the female, prior to the institution of the suit, became co-sharers, and, therefore, the plaintiffs can have no superior right of pre-emption. Support has been sought from a judgment of this Court in Anup Singh v. Ilam Chand, 1978 PunLJ 328. The present case is fully covered by the said authorities. Admittedly, the sale is covered by Section 15(2)(b) of the Act and the plaintiffs being tenants have no right of pre-emption. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.