( 1 ) THIS judgment will govern the connected First Appeals Nos. 15/71 16/71 and 17/71 which have been heard along with this appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellants in all these appeals are the legal representatives of the deceased bal Bhimrao Shitole who had instituted four separate suits for preemption in the year 1968 out of which these appeals have arisen The right of pre-emption in each of these cases was claimed in respect of different parts of the same house which were sold on 15-3-65 by separate registered sale-deeds for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- in each case to different persons. The right of pre-emption was claimed under the Qua-noon Haqshafa Biyasat Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the 'preemption act") on the ground that passage to the house sold as well as to the house of the plaintiff was common.

( 3 ) ALL these suits have been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge gwalior, on the ground that the right of pre-emption did not subsist after the repeal of Pre-emption Act by the M. P. Agrakrya Vidihi Nirsan Adhiniyam, 1968 (Act No. XIV of 1968 ). Being aggrieved by this decision the appellants have preferred these appeals. ( 4 ) THE main point for consideration ah all these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to enforce the right of pre-emption conferred by the Preemption Act even after the repealing Act was passed. The main contention of Shri J. M. Anand, learned counsel for the appellants in this connection is that the repeal of the Preemption act will not affect the appellants' right of preemption in view of Section 10 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957, which is reproduced below for facility of reference:-

" 10. Effect of repeal -- Where any Madhya Pradesh Act repeals any enactment then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed: or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing Madhya Pradesh Act had not been passed.

( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that as the repealing Act merely repeals the Preemption Act without saying anything more. As there is nothing to show that a different intention has been expressed full effect must be given to the aforesaid provisions of the General Clauses Act. We have, however, to see what is the nature of the right of pre-emption and what are the conditions requisite for enforcement of the right.

( 6 ) THEIR Lordships of the Privy Council considered the right of Pre-emption under a village custom in Hans Nath v. Radho Prasad Singh. AIR 1932 PC 57. Their lordships held that the decisive date as regards the right of the co-Sharer to preempt is the date of the decree. The aforesaid decision was followed by a Full bench of the Lahore High Court in Madhosingh v. James R. R. Skinner. AIR 1941 lah 433. While considering the nature and extent of right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act the following observations in Gaya Prasad v. Faiyaz hussain, AIR 1930 Oudh 274 were quoted with approval :--

"it has however been consistently held in the province of Oudh that although it is incumbent for a pre-emptor to show that be had a preferential right to purchase at the date of the sale, yet if events have subsequently happened, which deprive him of this preferential right, he would not be entitle