- (1.) By this judgement we shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 303 and 304 of 1966 in both of which the question arising for decision relates to the interpretation of the words "through her father" occurring in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).
(2.) The following pedigree-table may be set out here with advantage :
(3.) Shrimati Chambeli died in the year 1960 and her three children succeeded to her property including land measuring 36 kanals. Out of this land, an area covering 15 kanals was sold by the three children of Smt. Chambeli to Balwant Singh and Balbir Singh for Rs. 1,500/- and another comprising 21 kanals to Dharam Singh and Balbir Singh for Rs. 4,000/-, the two sale deed having been registered on the 2nd of April, 1962. Mahabir Singh respondent brought two suits for pre-emption one in respect of each sale, on the ground, besides another, that he was a co-sharer in the khata of which the lands sold formed part. It was common ground between the parties that Chambeli inherited the land on the death of her mother Rukmani who herself had succeeded to it on the death of her husband Indraj. The case of the vendees in so far as we are now concerned with it was that the two sales were covered by the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, according to which a co-sharer was not recognised as person in which the right of pre-emption vested. The relevant part of Section 15 of the Act is as follows :- 15. (1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest - (a) Where the sale is by a soleowner, - x x x x x x x (b) where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly - FIRST x x x x SECONDLY x x x x THIRDLY x x x x FOURTHLY. In the other co-sharer; x x x (c) where the sale is of land or property owned jointly and is made by all the co-sharers jointly - x x x x (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) - (a) where the sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her father or brother or the sale in respect of such land or property is by the son or daughter of such female after inheritance, the right of pre-emption, shall vest, - (i) if the sale is by such female, in her brother or bother's sons : (ii) if the sale is by the son or daughter of such female, in the mother's brothers or the mother's brother's sons of the vendor or vendors; (b) x x x x According to the appellants, Shrimati Chambeli inherited the property from Shrimati Rukmani before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act but they contended that whether she did so or not she must be regarded as having succeeded to it "through her father" within the meaning of sub-section (2) above set out. The contention of the vendees, on the other hand, was that Shrimati Rukmani died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, that Shrimati Chambeli succeeded to the land at Rukmani's death by when the latter had become the owner thereof by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and that in this situation it could not be said that Shrimati Chambeli had succeeded to the land "through her father." Both the suits were decreed by the trial Court, first appeals against whose decision were dismissed. The two regular second appeals brought by the vendees were also dismissed by Harbans Singh, J. on the 17th of August 1966, by a single judgement, the correctness of which is challenged before us.;