1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.217 OF 2009 Laxmibai S. Varal. ..Appellant. Vs. Shreeram C.Gholap and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.J.S.Deo for the Appellant. Mr.S.Salunke for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 19th January, 2010 PC : 1 This is a second appeal filed by the appellant-original plaintiff against the finding of the two lower courts dismissing her suit for declartion that the plaintiff had preferential right to obtain a sale deed. On perusal of the record, I find that a sale deed was executed in respect of another land. In the said sale deed, parties provided that the present suit land will be preferably sold to the plaintiff before selling to some other person. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is not related to the defendants. She 2 claims that she has right of preemption which was created by a contract. Advocate for the appellant relies upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijayalaxmi Vs. B. H. Chetty and another reported in A.I.R.1996 S.C. 2146 wherein the Apex Court has taken a view that right of preemption is a right of substitution conferred on some one either by statute, custom or contract. The right is to step into the shoes of the vendee preferentially, on the terms of sale already settled between the vendor and the vendee. In my view, the aforesaid judgment does not help the present appellant as in the present case terms of sale were never settled between the plaintiff and the defendants. On the contrary, the relevant clause in the sale deed expressly mentions that the agreement of sale would be executed after further mutual discussion. Parties allowed the said clause to remain vague in such terms. In my view, therefore, it cannot be said that a right of preemption was created under a contract. In this 3 view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, Second appeal is summarily dismissed. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)