And, further, if the sale by female vendors was number pre emptable, he as a successors in interest became a company sharer in the suit land, and as such he had a superior right over the plaintiff under Section 15 1 of the aforesaid Act.
The Trial Court as also the lower appellate companyrt went into oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in companying to the firm companyclusion that the appellant being a tenant had a superior right of preemption in preference to the respondent.
The respondent resisted the suit companytending that since the vendors were both males and females, the share of the female vendors was number pre emptable in terms of Section 15 2 of the Punjab Pre emption Act as applicable to the State of Haryana.
The suit property was sold by a set of companysharers, males as well as females.
