MUNNA LAL Vs. KALIKA BAKHSH SING ANS ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff has been found to be an ekjaddi co-sharer with the vendor. We may assume, (although it was not admitted in the Court below) that the defendant-vendee is a co-sharer in the mahal but not ekjaddi. The defendant pleaded, amongst other pleas that the right of pre-emption only arose in the case of a sale to a stranger and that in any event the sale had taken place after the plaintiff had refused to purchase. The Court below has decided against the defendant, hence the present appeal.

(2.) In the entry in the wajib-ul-arz a number of words are left to be understood. The meaning, however, seems to be pretty clear. It may be literally translated as follows:

(3.) "The right of purchase at the price which a stranger may give shall be prior (in favour of) the ek-jaddi co-sharer, after that with the co-sharers in the mahal, after they refuse the property may be sold to a stranger." The only reason for holding that this limits the right of pre-emption to a case where the property is sold to a stranger, is the introduction of the words "at the price which the stranger may give". The clause appears to us to be very similar to the clause in the wajib-ul-arz referred to in the case of Gurdial v. Mathtura Singh 6 Ind, Cas. 920 : 7 A.L.J. 610. In that case the wajib-ul-arz extract was translated as follows: