claimed preferential right of pre-emption on two distinct grounds i.e. being co-sharer in the land in question and also as brother of the vendor. His said right has been upheld by the trial court on both grounds vide judgment Annexure P/1 and has been upheld upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Atam Prakash (supra), section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (in short, the Act) as applicable to Haryana has not been completely struck off or declared ultra vires. On the contrary, only clauses 'First', 'Secondly' and 'Thirdly' of section 15(1)(b) of the Act had been held to be ultra vires the Constitution, thereby retaining clauses 'Fourthly' and 'Fifthly' on the statute book. Petitioner's preferential right of pre-emption on the ground of being co-sharer is covered by clause 'Fourthly' of section 15 (1)(b) of the Act and the said clause 'Fourthly' has not been declared ultra vires the Constitution in the case of Atam Prakash (supra). Consequently, plaintiff's right of pre-emption only on the ground of being brother of the vendor as provided in clause 'Secondly' of section 15(1)(b) of the Act stood extinguished because the said clause has been declared ultra vires the Constitution. However, plaintiff still retained his preferential right of preemption under clause 'Fourthly' of section 15(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of being co-sharer in the land because the said clause has not been declared ultra vires the Constitution in the case of Atam Prakash (supra). It is, thus, manifest that the decree holder retained his right of pre-emption as co-
