M.R.SHARMA, J.

1. The facts are given in the order of reference and need not be restated. The following question arises for consideration:

Whether sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bars the right of pre-emption granted to:-

(i) tenants u/s. 15(1)(a) FOURTHLY of the Act, and

(ii) co-sharers u/s. 15(1)(b) FOURTHLY of the Act.

In order to resolve this controversy, the historical development of the law of preemption deserves to be noticed. In R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla V/s. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628, it was observed as under:

"Now when a question arises as to the interpretation to be put on an enactment, what the Court has to do is to ascertain `the intent of them that make it , and that must of course be gathered from the words actually used in the statute. That, however, does not mean that the decision should rest on a literal interpretation of the words used in disregard of all other materials. "The literal construction then", says Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, page 19, "has, in general, but prima facie preference. To arrive at the real meaning, it is always necessary to get an exact co