J.V Gupta, J.:— This regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff, arises out of a suit for possession by way of Preemption.
2. The brief facts are that agricultural land measuring 27 Kanals and 6 Marlas, situated at village Batoal, Tehsil Rewari, was sold by Rura Ram and Smt. Jiwani, who are brother and sister, in favour of the vendees in lieu of Rs. 8, 500/- vide registered sale-deed, dated 6th May 1966. The said sale was sought to be pre erupted by Nand Ram claiming himself to be the co-sharer in the Khata out of which the disputed land was sold. The suit was contested by the defendant vendees and before the issues could be framed, Kura Ram, the next friend of the minor plaintiff, made a statement that Smt. Jiwani vendor had inherited the land in dispute from her brother Chiranji. In face of this statement of the next friend of the plaintiff, the vendees argued that the suit of the plaintiff was not competent as the plaintiff has no right under section 15(2)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, by which the sale is covered. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff had no right of action as Smt. Jiwani had inherited the property from her brother, and, therefore, under clause (a) of section 13(2), the plaintiff has no right to pre-empt the same.
3. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sale falls under section 15(1)(b) and is not covered by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15. The argument of the learned counsel is that under sub-section (2) of section 15, the sales which are made by the females exclusively are covered, where as if the sale is of a share of the joint land, then, sub-section (2) will not be attracted. He has not been able to cite any authority in order to substantiate his contention. On the other hand, authotity eported as Anup Singh v. Ilam Chand 1978 R.L.R 388 negatives the contention of the learned counsel. Support can also be had from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Birjee v. Pirthi. AIR 1973 P&H 289 It has been held therein that the provisions of sub-section 15 override the provisions of sub section (1) of section 15 of the Act and if a sale falls within both the sub-sections, Sub-Section (2) must prevail notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1). Admittedly, one of the vendors is a female and she inherited Page: 371the property from her brother, and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 is immediately attracted. If the sale does not tall under sub-section (2) of section 15, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 15 will come into play. As regards the land sold by Rura, the plaintiffs themselves have become co sharers by purchase of land from Jiwani. Thus the suit was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.L.S
Appeal dhmissed.