Ashok Rana vs Rakesh Kumar and others

G.C. Mittal, J.—A right of pre emption on the ground of relationship is allowed only to certain limited relations, which have been detailed specifically u/s 15(1) of the Punjab Pre emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') To preempt a sale made by a female, Section 15(1) of the Act would be applicable, unless a pre emptor demonstrates in the plaint, how the case will fall in the exception contained in Section 15(2) of the Act u/s 15(2) of the Act, only those persons would be entitled to preempt, if they bring their case specifically within the four corners of that provision by specifically stating that 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 or where the sale is made by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her husband or through her son, in case the son his inherited the land or property from his father. Again u/s 15(2) of the Act it has specified the relations in whom the right of preemption shall vest:

Reverting to the merits of the case, para 5 of the plaint in the pre-emption suit was as follows:

That the Plaintiff is the real cousin brother of Defendant No 1 vendor and brother''s son of husband of Defendant No. 2 vendor. Therefore, he has superior "right of pre-emption against Defendants Nos. 3 to 8, who are quite strangers to the family of the Plaintiff.

The sale was made on 12th June, 1981 and the suit for pre-emption was filed on 11th June, 1982, i.e almost on the last date of limitation. On 31st January, 1983, the vendee filed written statement in the suit, in which contents of para 5 of the plaint were denied and it was pleaded that the Plaintiff has no superior right of pre-emption. In replication filed on 7th March, 1983 the pre-emptor pleaded that the contests of written statement were wrong and those of the plaint were correct Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties led evidence On 23rd January, 1983 the pre-emptor filed an application for the amendment of the plaint to amend para 5 of the plaint, stating that Defendant No- 2 had inherited the property sold by her through her son Satish vide mutation No 119 and that the pre-emptor is the father''s brother''s son of the vendor Defendant No 1. This, according to the pre-emptor was not to change the nature of the suit and the amendment was sought just to elucidate the facts already on the file. The Court below declined to grant the amendment by order dated 13th February, 1285. Hence the pre-emptor has come in this revision.

If the Plaintiff has not already pleaded all facts in the original plaint which would entitle him to get a decree for pre-emption, amendment would not be allowed after expiry of limitation because valuable right would have accrued to the vendee. As already noticed, in the original plaint the Plaintiff has merely stated that he is the real cousin of one of the vendors A reading of Section 15(1) of the Act does not bring him as a real cousin in the purview of this section to give a right of pre-emption A real cousin can be pre-emptor''s father''s sister''s son or pre-emptor''s mother''s brother''s too but two such real cousins have no right to pre-empt under law Again if the pre emptor now wants to state that he is father''s brother''s son of the vendor, it would be making out a new case beyond limitation. In Shankar Singh v. Chanan Singh 1968 Cur. L. J. 363, the term used was collateral and when the pre-emptor wanted to give the precise relationship after limitation the amendment was disallowed and the present case of the pre-emptor is no better.

Way back in the year 1968 in Shankar Singh''s case (supra) Mehar Singh, C J. had highlighted that if the precise and exact ground of relationship to claim pre emption, as envisaged in law, is not stated in the plaint and it is merely alleged that the Plaintiff is a relation or collateral, he would not be entitled to, later on seek amendment of the plaint after lapse of limitation. This view bad stood the test of time and, therefore, should be known to all who draft the plaint. For this matter the pre emptor is to be blamed or his counsel. But Courts would not help by allowing amendment beyond limitation. Time has come where pleadings should be precise and specific and not vague or in general terms. The relevant provision of law should be thoroughly read and considered first and then the pleading should be drafted strictly on those lines

As regards the other amendment regarding the second vendor, there is no plea in the plaint that the vendor had succeeded to the properly through one of the relations mentioned in Section 15(2) of the Act. If Section 14(2) of the Act does not apply, which is an exception to Section 15(1) of the Act then pre-emptor will have to fall back u/s 15(1) of the Act u/s 15(1) of the Act, a vendor''s husband''s brother''s son has no right to pre-empt. Hence if amendment is now allowed after limitation, it will certainly change the nature of the claim Hence this amendment beyond limitation can also not be allowed.

Consequently, this revision being wholly devoid of merit, is dismissed.