The right of pre-emption is a personal right and dies with the person. However, if the pre-emptor dies after obtaining a decree in his favor, the decree becomes property or estate of the decree holder and can be enforced or continued by the heirs or legal representatives.

1. This is defendant-vendees appeal in a pre-emption suit against whom suit has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Prabhu son of Paras Ram was the owner of 8 kanals of land. He sold the same to the vendees-appellants for a consideration of Rs. 7000.00 , vide registered sale deed dated 30th July, 1971. Ram Kishan plaintiff (now deceased) pre-empted the same claiming that he was the son of the brother of the vendor s father, wile the vendees were the strangers.

3. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit because of his act and conduct and secondly that they were tenants on the suit land under the vendor at the time of the sale, so the sale was not pre-emptible.

4. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption and the plea of the defendants that they were tenants on the land was negatives. Ultimately the plaintiff s suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 7700.00 .

5. In appeal, the learned Senior Sub-Judge, (with enhanced appellate powers), affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. Dissatisfied with the same the vendees have come up in second appeal in this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that from the evidence or the record, it has been proved that the vendees were the tenants on the suit land at the time of sale. The findings of the Courts below, in this behalf, according to the learned counsel, are wrong. However, I do not find any force in this contention. On the perusal of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently held by both the Courts below that the defendants have miserably failed to prove that they were the tenants on the suit land. This being a finding of fact could not be challenged in second appeal.

8. It was next contended that admittedly the pre-emptor Ram Krishan died on 12th Nov., 1974, during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court and his place his son Jagir Singh was substituted as legal representative. According the learned counsel, right of pre-emption being a personal right had come to an end on the death of Ram Krishan, pre-emptor, because his son Jagir Singh had no right to pre-empt the sale under the Act. It was further contended that in view of Section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, no decree could be passed in a suit for pre-emption. which would be inconsistent with the provision of the said Act. Since, according to the learned counsel, appeal was a re-hearing of the suit, no decree could be passed in favour of Jagir Singh son of the deceased pre-emptor. In support of his contention he referred to Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in Chandrup Singh V/s. Data Ram, 1982 Pun LJ 430 : (AIR 1983 Punj and Har 1). Reference was also made to Mulla V/s. Godhu, AIR 1971 SC 89, wherein it was held that Section 31 was retrospective in operation and no decree could be passed in favour of a person who could not pre-empt the sale under the Act.

9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents cited Hazari V/s. Neki, ILR (1966) 1 Punj 333 : (AIR 1966 Punj 348), Audh Behari Singh V/s. Gajadhar Jaipuria, AIR 1954 SC 417 and Gurdev Kaur V/s. Smt. Chanan Kaur, AIR 1971 Punj and Har 416.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case law cited at the bar. There is no judgment supporting the contention of the appellant that if the pre-emptor died in appeal, after having obtained a decree from the trial Court in his favour, his legal representatives gild not be substituted because no right to survives as a right of pre-emption being a personal right dies with the person. Where as on the other hand, the matter was duly considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Hazari case (AIR 1966 Punj 348) (supra) and it was held that merely because the pre-emptor died during the pendency of the appeal his estate is not divested of the title acquired by h