Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) ON 18 -2 -1971 Siri Ram sold 50 Kanals of land out of 171 Kanals representing his 1600/357, share A supplementary registered document dated 23 -3 -1971 was again executed by the vendor by which out of Khasra numbers mentioned in the original sale deed Khasra Nos. 105/2 and 105/3 were omitted and instead Khasra Nos. 105/3/1 and 95/12 were substituted. 8 Kanals of land was excluded and 8 Kanals and 9 Marias of land was included The entire consideration was paid at the time of the execution and registration of the first sale deed and nothing was paid when the supplementary document was executed.
(2.) RATTAN claiming to be a co -sharer of the vendor, filed a suit for pre -emption on 22 -3 -1972. The vendees raised the point of limitation. Both the Courts below held that the limitation started from the execution and registration of the first sale deed and not from the supplementary document and since the suit for pre -emption was filed beyond one year, it was time barred. This is Plaintiff's second appeal in this Court. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I find that the view taken by both the Courts below is sound in law, and has the support of the decisions in Sheo Narain and Anr. v. Khaderu, A.I.R. 1926 Oudh 475 and Ganga Ram and Ors. v. Sardara, A.I.R. 1916 Lah. 396. I have gone through both the decisions and find that correct principle of law is enunciated therein and they are identical on facts. There was a clerical mistake in the original sale deed about two Khasra number which was corrected by supplementary registered document. The sale was in respect of large number of Khasras which were mentioned in the original sale deed The right of pre -emption is not a right of re -purchase but a right of substitution for the vendee. That being so, the pre emptor had to bring a suit within one year of the execution of the original sale deed. By subsequent document correction was made in two Khasra numbers and that too within a short span of a month and five days.
(3.) TO my mind, the matter can be viewed from another angle. The pre -emptor's suit qua two Khasra numbers, which were corrected by the supplementary document, would be within limitation; whereas the suit for all the remaining Khasra numbers, which were correctly mentioned in the original sale deed, would be time barred The second document is not a sale deed which could be preempted. The right of pre -emption is against a sale - The sale deed is the first document dated 18 -2 -1971 and the second one is merely a supplementary document to correct the Khasra numbers Once the Plaintiff allowed the limitation to run out from the original sale deed, the right to pre -empt the sale lapsed which could not be revived due to the execution of the second document. Moreover the suit for 2 Khasra Nos. would be for partial pre -emption which is not allowed.;