Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. :

Do the words "son or daughter of such female" occurring in S. 15 (2) (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 as amended by Act X of 1960 include an illegitimate son or illegitimate daughter of such female is the only question that arises in this appeal by special leave.

2. The appellants are the illegitimate son and daughter of one Sardarni Prem Prakash Kaur. By a registered deed of sale dated December 1, 1956 the said lady sold 18 bighas, 1 biswas and 5 1/2 biswansis of agricultural land for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents. The appellants filed a suit to pre-empt this sale. There was some dispute about the consideration actually paid but we are not now concerned with it. Both the trial court as well as the District Court on appeal granted to the appellants a decree for pre-emption, though to a limited extent. The respondents filed a second appeal to the High Court and the learned Judges, by the judgment now under appeal, directed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the appellants were not comprehended within the class of persons who were entitled to pre-emption under S. 15 (2) (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as it now stands under the amendment effected by Act X of 1960. It is from this judgment that, by special leave, the present appeal has been brought.

3. Mr. Bishan Narain, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted to us that the provision in S. 15 of the Pre-emption Act must be read in conjunction with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which made provision for the devolution of property belonging to a female owner and that as under the latter enactment illegitimate children of a Hindu female were entitled to succeed to her property, it must be held that when the Punjab legislature used in 1960 the expression son or daughter it meant a son or a daughter who would be entitled to succeed as an heir of a Hindu female. We are unable to accept this submission of learned Counsel. Section 15 whose construction calls for consideration reads as follows:

"15. Persons in whom right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immoveable property. - (1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest

(a) where the sale is by a sole owner-

FIRST, in the son or daughter or son s son or daughter s son of the vendor;

SECONDLY, in the brother or brother s son of the vendor;

THIRDLY, in the fathers brother or father s brothers son of the vendor;

FOURTHLY, in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof:

(b) where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly,

FIRST, in the sons or daughters or sons sons or daughters sons of the vendor or vendors;

SECONDLY, in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendor or the vendors;

THIRDLY, in the fathers brothers or father s brother s sons of the vendor or vendors;

FOURTHLY, in the other co-sharers

FIFTHLY, in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof;

(c) where the sale is of land or property owned jointly and is made by all the co-sharers jointly-

FIRST, in the sons or daughters or sons sons or daughters sons of the vendors;

SECONDLY, in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendors;

THIRDLY, in the father s brothers or father s brother s sons of the vendors;

FOURTHLY, in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendors or any one of them the land or property sold or a part thereof.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-

(a) where the 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, the right of pre-emption shall vest,-

(i) if the sale is by such female, in her brother or brother s son;

(ii) if the sale is by the son or daughter of such female, in the mother s bro