ABDUL KHAN Vs. SHAKIRA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sold by the vendor consisted of a zamindari share as well as a one-third share in a house and a sugarcane pressing mill. The plaintiff sued to pre-empt the zamindari under the provisions of the Agra Pre-emption Act, and the share in the house and the mill on the basis of the Mahomedan law. On the date fixed for hearing her witnesses were not present, but an application, unaccompanied by an affidavit, was filed asking for an adjournment. That application was disallowed and the plaintiff's claim as regards the last two items was dismissed on the ground that she had not performed the necessary demands required by the Mahomedan law; but her claim for pre-emption of the zamindari was decreed on payment of a proportionate price. That judgment has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The contention before the Courts below was that it was the duty of the plaintiff to pre-empt the entire property which was sold by the vendor, and that in as much as by not having performed the necessary demands she disqualified herself from pre-empting part of the property under the Mahomedan law, her claim based on the provisions of the Act must also fail on the ground of partial pre-emption.

(3.) The lower appellate Court overruled this contention on the ground that an amendment proposed by a member in the Legislative Council for adding the words "in accordance with the provisions of this Act," at the end of Section 16, was opposed because it was thought unnecessary and superfluous and was lost, and that therefore the expression "entitled to pre-empt" in that section must be doomed to mean pre-empt under the Act." It is not proper to refer to the proceedings of the Legislative Council in order to determine the true interpretation of the language of a section. We have to interpret the section as it stands irrespective of what might have been thought by any individual member of the Legislative Council.