Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) These two appeals by special leave are directed against two different judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in suits for pre-emption. The facts of the two cases are different.C. A. 639/85:
(2.) In this Appeal the alienation was on November 22, 1972, by one Nathu and his wife Smt. Singari in favour of outsiders. Plaintiffs claimed possession of the property by way of pre-emption on the ground that they have superior rights being father's brother's sons of Nathu covered under S. 15(1)(a), Thirdly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. That claim was decreed so far as Nathu's half share in the property was concerned and the claim as against the alienation of half share by his wife was rejected. The alienees' appeal to the District Judge as also the High Court did not succeed.
(3.) A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana, (1986) 1 SCALE 260 has recently held: "There is, therefore, no reasonable classification and clauses 'First', 'Secondly' and 'Thirdly' in S. 15(1)(a) are, therefore, declared ultra vires the Constitution." The result of this decision in 'Atam Parkash's case is that S. 15(1)(a) Thirdly is, and was not, available to the plaintiffs to base their claim of pre-emption upon. CA.639/85 has, therefore, to be allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court as upheld in the first and second appeals must be reversed. Plaintiffs' suit for pre-emption has to be dismissed. Since the reversal is the outcome of a judgment delivered by this Court during the pendency of the civil appeal, we direct parties to bear their respective costs throughout. C.A. 911/71:;