Special Leave Petition Civil No 11015 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 2586 of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No 1504 of 1977
RK Jain DS Mehra and Ms Abha Jain for the Petitioners
Ram and Hari Chand are sons of one Kesaria
The suit land be longed jointly to Respondents 5 to 7
They sold it to Re spondents 1 to 4Nathi Mal Kejriwal Radhey Shayam Kejriwal Smt
Daropdi Devi and Nagar Mal Kejriwal who were strangers to their family for a consideration of Rs33000 under a sale deed registered on 25101971
The petitioners who claimed themselves to be the sons and nephews of the ven dors instituted a suit in Civil Suit No 466 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Judge 1st Class Palwal for possession of the suit land on payment of Rs33000 claiming that they were entitled to the right of pre emption in respect of the suit land either under clause First  or Secondly  of Section 151a of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 here inafter referred to as the Act  as in force in the State of Haryana or under clause First  or Secondly  of Section 151b of the Act
The learned Sub Judge upheld the plea of the petitioners and decreed the suit for possession of the suit land against Respondents 1 to 4 who had purchased the suit land as well as against Respondents 5 to 7 who had sold it subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs36642  which included the consideration of Rs33000 and interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum
The learned Sub Judge further directed the petitioners to deposit the sum of Rs36642 minus the zare punjam amount on or before 3rd May 1976 and that on their failure to deposit the said amount he directed that the suit should be deemed to have been 70 dismissed with costs
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned SubJudge Respondents 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the District Judge Gurgaon in Civil Appeal No 69 of 1976
The appeal was dismissed
Against the judgment of the learned District Judge Respondents 1 to 4 filed a second appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regu lar Second Appeal No 1504 of 1977
That second appeal was taken up for hearing on 2nd May 1986
By that time this Court had delivered its judgment in Atam Prakash vs State of Haryana and Others  declaring clauses First  Secondly  and Thirdly  of Section 151a clauses First  Secondly  and Thirdly  of Section 151b clauses First Secondly  and Thirdly  of Sec tion 151c and the whole of Section 152 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution
Following the said decision the High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit since the provisions under which the petitioners claimed the right of pre emption had been declared void by this Court
This petition is filed praying for special leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the High Court in the second appeal
At the hearing of this Special Leave Petition the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even though the petitioners were not able to claim the right of pre emption under clauses First  and Secondly  of Section 151a or clauses First  and Secondly  of Section 151b by reason of the decision in the Atam Prakash s case supra they were entitled to claim the right of pre emption under clause Fourthly  in Section 151b of the Act
Section 151b reads thus 15
Persons in whom right of pre emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property 1The right of pre emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shah vest  a          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 in the sons or daughters or sons or daughters  sons of the vendor or vendors Secondly in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendor or vendors 71 Thirdly in the father s brother or father s brother s sons of the vendor or vendors Fourthly in the other co sharers Fifthly in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof            It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the suit land belonged to the joint family and it had not been sold by all the co sharers they were entitled to claim the right of pre emption under clause Fourthly  of Section 151b of the Act because they happened to be the non alienating co sharers Although there is no specific finding that the property is the joint property in this case we shall assume for purposes of this judgment that the suit land was joint property
In order to understand the meaning of the  words other co sharers  in Section 151b we have to read of the Act as it stood before the decision in Atam Prakash s case supra
It is seen that the expres sion other co sharers  in clause Fourthly  of Section 151b of the Act refers to only those co sharers who do not fall under clause First  or Secondly  or Thirdly  of Section 151b of the Act
Since the petitioners admitted ly fall either under clause First  or under clause Second ly  of Section 151b of the Act they are clearly outside the scope of clause Fourthly 
Therefore the petitioners cannot claim the right of pre emption under clause Fourth ly 
We do not therefore find any substance in this con tention which was urged for the first time before the High Court The suit was therefore rightly dismissed by the High Court holding that the petitioners were no longer entitled to any relief under the Act
This petition there fore fails and it is dismissed
MLA Petition dis missed


Summary:
Respondent Nos
5 to 7 were joint owners of the suit land
They sold it to respondent nos
1 to 4 on 251071
The petitioners sous and nephews of the vendors instituted a suit before the sub Judge Palwal for possession of the suit land on payment of the sale consideration on the ground that they were entitled to the right of the pre emption in respect of the suit land either under clause First or Secondly of section I51a or under clause First  or Second ly  of section 151b of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 as in force in the SLate of Haryana
The Sub Judge decreed the suit for possession
The appeal of Respondent Nos 1 to 4 against the aforesaid order having been dismissed by the District Judge they filed a second appeal before the High Court
During the pendency of the second appeal the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Atam Prakash vs State of Haryana  Ors  The High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit since the provisions under which the petitioners claimed the fight of pre emption had been declared void by the Supreme Court in Atam Pra kash s case
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the petitioners in the special leave petition contended that since the suit land belonged to the joint family and it had not been sold by all the sharers they were entitled to claim the right of pre emption under dause Fourtidy  of s151b of the Act because they happened to be the non alienating co sharers
Dismissing the petition HELD The expression other co sharers  in clause Fourthly  of section 151b of the Act refers to only those co sharers who do not fall 69 under clause First  or Secondly  or Thirdly  of s151b of the Act
Since the petitioners admittedly fail either under clause First  or under clause Secondly  of section 151b of the Act they are clearly outside the scope of clause Fourthly 
Therefore the petitioners cannot claim the right of pre emption under clause Fourthly 
71D E