The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of pre-emption can be exercised by heirs of the vendor under the provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This may be read in continuation of my judgment dated 1.2.1961, by which I had asked for a report from the Court below as to whether the land in dispute sold by Smt. Santi was received by her from her father, Tola, by inheritance or in some other way. The said report has been received and both the Courts below have concurrently found that the land in dispute had come to Smt. Santi by gift from her mother Swarna. That being so, it was the self-acquired property of Smt. Santi and the finding given by the learned District Judge in the judgment under appeal was correct.

2. Now the question arises whether the plaintiff-respondent, who has been held to be the vendors (Smt. Santi) fathers brothers son by the learned District Judge, and which finding of fact has not been-assailed before me, has a right of pre-emption as against the vendee-appellant, who is a stranger. The learned District Judge had held that the plaintiff being an heir of Smt. Santi had such a right. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the provisions of the new Section 15, substituted by the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act ( No. 10 of 1960), the sale in dispute was not pre-emption at all, because only those sales made by a female, which are mentioned in sub- section (2) of this section, are pre-emptible and the present sale being not covered by the provisions of Section (2) could not be pre-empted. The provisions of Section 15 are as follows :-

"(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, -

x x x x

x x x x

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

x x x x

x x x x

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

(a) Where the sales is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her father or brother of 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 brothers or the mothers brothers sons of the vendors;

(b) where the sale is by a female of 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, -

FIRST, in the son or daughter of such female;

SECONDLY, in the husbands brother or husbands brothers son of such female.

Sub-section (2)(a) deal with the sale of those lands which a female has inherited through her father or brother, while sub-section (2)(b) deals with the sales of lands to which she has succeeded through her husband, or through her son in case, the son has inherited the land sold from his father. In the present case, the land which Smt. Santi has sold, does not fall in either of these two categories, because she has got the same by gift from her mother and was, therefore, her self-acquired property. The case is governed by the provisions of sub-section (1)(a) (Thirdly) because the sale is by a sole owner and is being pre-empted by the vendors fathers brothers son. Sub-section (1) nowhere lays down that the sales made by a female are not pre-emtpible. The word sole owner mentioned therein applies to both male and female owners. Sub-section (2) is merely an exception to the general rule laid down in sub-section (1) and preferential treatment has been given, firstly, to the heirs of the father and brother, if a female has sold the property inherited from either of them and, secondly, to the heirs of her husband, if the subject matter of the sale is the property to which she had succeeded through her husband.

3 In view of what I have said above, I find no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, however, I would leave the parties t