Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THIS an appeal of the Plaintiff whose suit for preemption was decreed by the trial Judge but in the appeal preferred by the vendee -Defendant the learned District Judge has dismissed it.
(2.) IN pursuance of the sale deed of August 11, 1959, registered in the office of the Registrar, Ballabgarh, on September 19, 1959, a parcel of land measuring 6 Kanals in village Renhera, tehsil Ballabgarh, district Gurgaon was sold by Shahabuddin for a sum of Rs. 4000/ - to Ram Chandra Azizuddin, who described himself as a minor, but is now a major, brought a suit for preemption of this land as the son of Shahabuddin. The land was described for purposes of Court fee as agricultural land. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant a plea was taken that the land was not agricultural but had been used for extraction of saltpetre and was described as Ghair Mumkin abadi. It was further pleaded that in consequence of the land not being agricultural advalorem Court fee on Rs. 4000/ - was payable. The Plaintiff asserted that the land was agricultural land and had been shown to be under cultivation in the Khasra Girdawari of year 1959. The liability to pay advalorem Court fee was denied. I am making a reference to the detailed pleas on the question of the nature of the land and the Court fee payable thereon in view of the fact that this is now the only surving question in appeal. The suit of the Plaintiff was resisted on many grounds and this gave rise to as many as eight issues two of these being thus worded: - "Issue No. 2: Are these land not agricultural lands ? Issue No. 7: What is the proper valuation for Court fee and jurisdiction - The learned trial Judge had no difficulty in deciding the substantial plea of the Defendant vendee that Aziz Uddin was not the son of Shahabuddin The Plaintiff was found to be the son of the vendor. It was further held that the sale was for Rs. 4000/ - and not Rs. 2000/ - as alleged by the Plaintiff. It was further found by the Court that the transaction of sale was neither collusive nor benami.
(3.) ON the issue whether the land was agricultural or not, the trial Judge took the view that the matter was wholly irrelevant as to whether the land was agricultural or village immovable property as the Plaintiff had a right of preemption in either case under Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, Sub -section (1) of which may usefully be reproduced: (1) The right of preemption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest - (a) Where the sale is by a sole owner FIRST, in the son or daughter or son's son (or) daughter's son of the vendor.;