A step son does not have a right of pre-emption under Section 15 (1) (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, in respect of the sale of self-acquired agricultural land by his step mother.

T.R. Handa, J.—"Whether a step son can claim a right of pre-emption under Section 15 (1) (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended up to date), hereinafter referred to as the Act in respect of sale of self acquired agricultural land effected by his step mother" is the short and sole question which falls for consideration in this regular second appeal filed at the instance for the plaintiff whose claim to pre-empt such a sale has been negatived by both the Courts below,

2. The plaintiff-appellant is the son of one Mahantu by his first wife. Mahantu performed his second marriage with one jaiwanti. Smt. Jaiwanti owned some land as her self acquired property in the sense that she had not inherited the same. She sold this land to the present respondents. The plaintiff-appellant thereupon filed his suit giving rise to this appeal to preempt that sale. He claimed his superior right of pre-emption of the solitary gound that he was the step son of the vender Smt. Jaiwanti.

3. As stated earlier both the Courts below have ruled that the step son of a female vendor has no right to pre-empt a sale made by her in respect of her self-acquired property.

4. Section 15 of the Act enumerates the various categories of persons who have been vested with the right of pre-emption in respect of the sales of agricultural land and village immovable property. This section reads : "Section 15. Persons in whom right of Pre-emption vest in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property.- (1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest: (a) Whether the sale is by a sole owner : First,—in the son or daughter or sons son or daughters son of the vendor, or Secondly,—in the brother or brothers son of the vendor, or Thirdly,—-in the fathers brother or fathers brothers son of the vendor; Fourthly,—in the tenant who holds, under tendency 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 of daughters or sons sons or daughters sons of the vendor or vendors. Secondly,—-in the brothers or brothers sons of the vendor or vendors; Thirdly,—in the fathers brothers or fathers brothers sons of the vendor or vendors. Fourthly,—in the other co-sharers, Fifthly,—in the tenant who holds, under the tenancy of the vendor or vendors, the land or property sold or a part thereof. (c) Whether the sale is of land of 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 brothers sons of the vendors. Thirdly,—in the fathers brothers or fathers brothers sons of the vendors ; Fourthly,—in the tenants who hold under the tenancy of vendors or any 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 the 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 brothers son ; (ii) if the sale is by the son or daughter of such female, in the mothers brother or the mothers brothers sons of the vendor or vendors. (b) Where the sale is by a female of the land or property to which she has succeeded through her husband or through her son, in case the son has inherited the land or property sold, from his father, the right of pre-emption shall vest: (i) First, in the son or daughter of such (husband of the) female. (ii) Secondly, in the husbands brother or the husbands brothers son of such female.

5. The short argument of Shri Prem Goel, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, is that this section makes no distinction between a son and a step son