K. K. Verma, J. --1.This is plaintiff's appeal from the decree dated 9.4.1974 of the District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No.20-A/1967, by which the decree for pre-emption dated 31.7.1967 of the First Civil Judge, Gwalior, in C.S.No.261-N1961 was reversed.

2. Qanoon Haqshafa (Riayasat Gwalior) Samvat 1992, which came into force on 5th July 1936, was repealed by the M.P. Legislature by the Act No. XIV of 1968, it contained no other provision whatsoever. It was published in the Government Gazette on 28.6.1968 when the vendee's appeal was pending before the District Judge.

3. The suit house is to the east of the appellant's house at Lashkar in the city of Gwalior. The owners of the suit house, Ramchandra and others, sold the suit house to the respondent under a sale-deed dated 5.12.60 (Ex.P-1) registered on 10.12.1960. The sale-deed recited that the sale was in consideration of Rs.8,000/.

4. The suit, which was filed against the vendee on 5.12.1961, was based on the following averments:

The plaintiff's father Badri Prasad, who owned the suit house, sold it to one Nathmal alias Nathulal-- father of aforementioned Ramchandra -- by a registered sale-deed dated 24.4.1909, when Nathmal alias Nathulal executed a registered agreement dated 24.4.1909 (Ex.P-2) in favour of Badri Prasad binding himself to make the first offer of sale of the suit house to his vendor Badri Prasad whenever the occasion arose.

5. The plaintiff alleged that his residential house was the dominant heritage whereas the suit house was the servant heritage in respect of several kinds of easements exercised for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage for more than 20 years.

6. The plaintiff averred that he had a right of pre-emption in respect of the suit house not only customary in origin, but also a statutory one in view of the averments in the previous paragraph.

7. The plaintiff averred that on sensing the intent of Ramchandra and others to deprive him of the right of pre-emption he had asserted his right in a public notice (Ex.P-3) by publishing it in the newspaper 'Hamari Aawaz' on 17.10.1960. Ignoring this, the respondent purchased the suit house from Ramchandra and others on 5.12. 1960 for Rs.5,000/- but inflated the figure to Rs.8,000/- in the sale-deed.

8. The defendant denied the existence of the easements and the plaintiff's alleged right of pre-emption. He maintained that he paid eight thousand rupees as the purchase money to the vendors. He contended that the Qanoon Haqshafa (Riayasat Gwalior), Samvat, 1992 had become unconstitutional.

9. The parties adduced evidence on all the issues. The learned trial Judge answered all the issues, in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the claim. The plaintiff deposited the purchase money in Court within the time-limit fixed in the judgment. The vendee appealed. The District Judge, Gwalior, stayed the execution of the decree on 28.10.1967.

10. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal on the following findings:

The repeal of the Qanoon Haqshafa (Riayasat Gwalior) Samvat 1992 ended the plaintiff's statutory claim to get a decree for pre- emption. The plaintiff could not fall back on custom for which there was no evidence. At all events, the customary right of pre- emption was extinguished on the coming into force of the Qanoon Haqshafa, Samvat 1992 and could not be revived on the repeal of the said law.

11. The learned Judge further held that the agreement of pre- emption offended against the rule of perpetuity, and the vendee being a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of the agreement, the agreement was enforceable on these two counts.

12. The learned District Judge declined to deal with the questions of fact and law about the existence of easement rights which were held by the trial Court as proved. .

13. In second appeal, the respondent-vendee has not filed any cross- objection.

14. The learned counsel for the parties argued at length on the effect of the repeal of the Qanoon Haqshafa (Riaya