Under Section 15 (2) (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the right of pre-emption in the case of a sale by a female of property inherited through her brother vests in the brother or brother's son of the vendor.

1. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case :-

RAM DIA | -----------------| | | Sugan Chand Ashrafi Devi Bohti (Son) (Vendor) (Daughter) = Mukhtiari (daughter) (vendor) (widow) | | Mula (son) Plaintiff Pre-emptor.

2 Ram Dia was the occupancy tenant of the land in dispute. On his death the occupancy rights were inherited by his son Sugan Chand. When Sugan Chand died, these rights were mutated in the name of his widow Mukhtiari in March, 1935. On the enforcement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act VIII of 1953), the occupancy tenants became owners of the land, with the result that Mukhtiaris occupancy rights also were enlarged into absolute ownership, she died in 1957 after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had come into force. by virture of the provisions of the Act, Sugan Chands sisters, Ashrafi Devi and Bohti, inherited the property left by Mukhtiari. In October, 1963, both these sisters sold the property and that sale led to a suit for pre-emtion by Mula and Karta Ram. The former claimed pre-emption on the ground that he was the son of Ashrafi Devi and the latter alleged himself to be a tenant of the land in dispute on the date of sale. Karta Ram, however, was not proved to be a tenant and that is not a matter of controversy any longer in this appeal. Mulas claim was rejected by the trial Court, but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, decreed it to the extent of Ashrafi Devis 1/2 share in the land in dispute. The vendee then institute a second appeal in this Curt and Mula plaintiff filed cross-objections to the effect that his suit should have been decreed in its entirety. Harbans Singh, J. heard the appeal and came to the conclusion that Mula had no right to pre-empt the sale. He, consequently, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit as also the cross-objections filed by Mula.

3. The plaintiffs then filed a Letters Patent Appeal and it came up for hearing before Mehar Singh, C. J. and B. R. Tuli, J. During the course of arguments before the Bench, one of the questions that was canvassed was that Mula plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the entire sale and not only the half share belonging to his mother Ashrafi Devi. There was, however a decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported as Moti Ram V/s. Bakhwant Singh, (1967) 69 Pun LR 1041 = (AIR 1968 Punj 141 (FB) ) wherein it was held - "that pre-emptor cannot claim the entire property sold on the basis of relationship when it is found that he is not related to one or more of the vendors. The right of pre-emption is generally limited to the extent of the pre-emptors right. A pre-emptor is not bound to claim the whole when his right of pre-emption extends only to a part. A pre-emptor is entitled to pre-empt in case of joint sale the share of the vendor or vendors through whom he claims his right. " The learned Judges thought that this authority needed reconsideration by a larger Bench and that is how this appeal has been placed before us.

4. The first point that needs consideration is whether the sale in the instant case falls under Sec.15 (2) (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 , (hereinafter called the Pre-emption Act), as contended by the vendee, because then the right of pre-emption would vest only in the brother or brothers son of the vendor. Sec.15 (2) (a) of the Pre-emption Act reads - "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 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 vendor or vendors. " This su