The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the right of pre-emption under Ext.A1, the enforceability of the right against a sale executed in execution of a decree for specific performance, and the subsistence of the right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the date of the suit, and at the passing of the decree.

Second defendant is the appellant. The suit was for enforcement of a right of pre-emption.

2. The facts can be summarised as follows:-

First defendant's mother Chempakam Ammal executed Ext.A-1 settlement deed settling properties inclusive of the plaint schedule on her five sons and a grandson. The plaint schedule is D schedule in Ext.A-1 allotted to the 4th party in the settlement deed. The first defendant, Gopala Pillai, the 4th party and Chempakam Ammal executed Ext.A-2 mutual exchange deed under which the D schedule wi 'S obtained by the 1st defendant who is the 3rd party in Ext.A-1. The plaintiff was allotted C schedule therein. Chempakam Ammal reserved right of enjoyment on all the items in Ext. Al except C schedule. According to' the first respondent as per clause to in Ext.A1, alienation of property allotted under Ext.A-1 could be only to the allottees therein. First defendant entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell the property pursuant to which he instituted Ext. A4 suit for specific performance and the suit was decreed. The first respondent alleged that he is entitled to have the plaint schedule property offered to him and that the first defendant was not entitled to execute sale deed in favour of the appellant who is a stranger. First defendant died pending suit.

3. The appellant contended that, the first defendant did not have any right of pre-emption under clause 10 of Ext.A1. If at all there is one, the suit is premature. The sale in favour of the first respondent is not a voluntary sale and therefore even if the first respondent has any right of pre-emption that cannot be enforced. It was also contended that at any rate on the death of the first defendant even if there was right of pre-emption in favour of the first respondent that ceased to exist.

As already stated Chempakam Ammal reserved right of enjoyment over all items except the C schedule. C schedule was allotted absolutely to the first respondent. It is claimed that the right of pre-emption is contained in clause 10 of Ext.A1. The case of the appellant is clause 10 does not confer any right of pre-emption on the C schedule's owner, the first respondent. It is now necessary to see the relevant clauses in Ext.A1. Clause 10 cannot be read in isolation. That clause is only part of the whole scheme of allotment. The clauses have to be read and understood assigning the natural meaning to the words used therein. The intention of the parties has to be found out from a reading of the clauses and if the clauses do not suffer from any ambiguity the construction would be easier. Clause 10 states that after the death of the executant the respective allottees of all item except C schedule (-could be in the With the children of the respective sharers. The contention of the appellant is, right of pre-emption is conferred only on allottees except C schedule owner. In clause 8 of Ext.A-1 the executant reserves right of enjoyment till her life on all items except C schedule. Clause 9 states that after her death the owners of A, B,D, Hand F schedules could be in possession and enjoyment of the property. It proceeds to state that the respective owners except C schedule can effect mutation.

5. The first part of Clause 10 contains a direction as to what should follow on the death of the executant. In that context the clause stales that, the respective allottees except C schedule could be in possession and enjoyment on the death of the executant. It was unnecessary to make such a provision for C schedule as C schedule was given absolutely. In the succeeding part of the said clause the words used is "any of the shares" in contradistinction to "shares except C schedule's owner" used in the first part and mandates that if alienation is made, it should be to the sharers in the document. This is. Followed by further statement as to the termination of the right of pre-emption where it.

The respective sharers. The language used in the clauses advanced early is clea