Chandra Gupta Suri, J. - (1.) This regular second appeal by the Defendant -vendees arises out of a civil suit filed by the plaintiff -respondents to preempt a sale of land made by two daughters of Sohan Singh deceased. The plaintiff Respondents had claimed that they had a superior right to purchase the property and to pre -empt the sale under Sub -section (1) of Sec. 15 of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1913 as they had been in occupation of the land sold as tenants of the Vendors from a date prior to the sale. It was the case of the vender -appellants that the female vendors had succeeded to the land through their father and that Sub -section (2) of Sec. 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act was applicable and that the right of preemption was confined only to the few near relations of the vendors mentioned in that Sub -section This plea of the vendees had succeeded with the trial Court and the suit filed by the respondents had been dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court have however, been reversed on first appeal filed by the plaintiff respondents. Some additional evidence had been allowed by the lower appellate Court on the application of the plaintiff -respondents under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The vendees, therefore, appear as appellants in this Court (in the second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The sole question for decision at this stage is whether the case falls under Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) of Sec. 15 of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, This would depend on whether the two female vendors who were real sisters can be described to have succeeded to the land in dispute through their father Sohan Singh.
(3.) Shri Aggarwal the Learned Counsel for the appellants, challenges the co erectness of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court on the following grounds: (1) The lower appellate Court was not justified in admitting additional evidence to the stage of first appeal. Reliance was in this connection placed on the ruling of the Privy Council in (Raja) Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Sahi v/s. Amar Singh, AIR 1923 P.C. 128 and of the Supreme Court in state of U P. v/s. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 912. (2) Part of land in dispute was banjar or waste land and its fale could not be pre -empted in view of the provisions of Sec. 5 (b) of the Punjab Pre -emption Act and the explanation given there under. (3) The female vendors had in fact succeeded to the land through their father and the contrary finding of the lower appellate Court on that point was erroneous in law and fact. (4) Subsection (2) of Sec. 15 would be applicable even if the vendors had got the land from their mother Piar Kaur; who is still alive and who appeared in the lower appellate Court as a witness of the plaintiff -pre -emptor.;