Tenant pre-emption rights upheld; additional evidence was properly admitted to clarify uncertainty in the revenue record.

A tenant shown in the revenue record as tenant-at-will under the vendor before and at the time of sale was held to have a preferential right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, and the decree in his favour was sustained. The lower appellate court was also entitled to admit additional documentary evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC because the record was needed to remove uncertainty noticed by the trial court, and its reception did not amount to filling a lacuna. The objection based on the vendor's status as a female and the restricted class of pre-emptors under Section 15(2) was not entertained in second appeal because it had not been raised below and would have required fresh factual inquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff had a preferential right of pre-emption as a tenant under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, and whether the lower appellate Court could properly receive additional documentary evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaintiff was shown in the revenue records as tenant-at-will under the vendor before and at the time of sale, and the later entry clarified the earlier doubt about his possession on the date of sale. The lower appellate Court was entitled to admit the additional record under Order 41 Rule 27 because the evidence was required to clear up a matter on which the trial Court had felt uncertainty, and the reception of such evidence was not merely to fill a lacuna. The objection based on the female vendor and the restricted class of pre-emptors under Section 15(2) could not be entertained in second appeal because it had not been raised or tried below and would have required fresh factual inquiry.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's right to pre-empt as a tenant was upheld, the additional evidence was validly admitted, and the challenge to the decree failed.

---