Sharma, J.—This is a defendants appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Alwar in a suit for declaration regarding certain agricultural property. The plaintiff brought the suit on the ground that the agricultural plot No. 362 measuring 3 bighas and 10 biswas had been sold to him by Prabhu Singh defendant respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by a registered sale deed dated the 29th of May, 1944 and possession thereof had been delivered to him. In accordance with sec. 34 of the Alwar Land Revenue Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Alwar Revenue Code), the mutation was entered at No. 508 by the Patwari on the 16th of June, 1944. Subsequently, it was affirmed by the Naib Tehsildar, Behror on the 25th of March, 1945. An appeal was preferred by Budha Singh in the court of the Collector, but it was dismissed. Budha Singh then submitted an application in revision to the Revenue Minister, Alwar State who set aside the mutation on 28th September, 1945 and the decision of the Revenue Minister was upheld by the Executive Council of Alwar. 2. The present suit was filed in the court of Munsif, Behror on the 8th of July, 1948 and it has been prayed that it be declared that the sale in question should be held as valid holding that the orders of the Revenue Minister and the Executive Council are void. 3. Prabhu Singh defendant No. 1 admitted the plaintiffs claim but the defendant No. 2 Budha Singh contested the suit. He pleaded that the sale was affected without obtaining his consent and that the full consideration of Rs. 1,000/- was not paid to the vendor but only a sum of Rs. 300/- was paid. He admitted that the registered sale-deed had been executed in favour of the plaintiff and also that possession had been delivered to the plaintiff. 4. The learned Munsif, dismissed the suit by his judgment, dated the 27th of November, 1955 holding that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that any refusal had first been taken from the defendant No. 2 Budha Singh and that consequently, the sale was void. 5. 4. The learned Munsif, dismissed the suit by his judgment, dated the 27th of November, 1955 holding that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that any refusal had first been taken from the defendant No. 2 Budha Singh and that consequently, the sale was void. 5. Against the above judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, the plaintiff Budha Singh went in appeal and the learned District Judge, Alwar disagreed with the learned Munsif on the point that refusal had first been taken from Budha Singh. He also held that Budha Singh had no right to have the declaration prayed for and that at the most, he could file a suit for pre-emption if he had any preferential right to purchase. 6. Dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Budha Singh defendant No. 2 has come in appeal to this court. 7. I have heard Shri M. M. Tewari on behalf of the appellant and Shri R. P. Goyal on behalf of the plaintiff respondent. It has been argued by Mr. Tewari that there were no special reasons for the learned Judge to go against the finding of fact of the first court that no refusal had first been taken from Budha Singh. It was argued that in case no refusal was taken from Budha Singh, he would have a right to have declared that the sale was invalid, by virtue of sec. 129 of the Alwar Revenue Code. 8. On behalf of the plaintiff respondent it has been argued by Mr. Goyal that the learned District Judge has very carefully considered the entire evidence on the record and has given sound reason for believing the plaintiffs witnesses on the point of refusal although they were not believed by the first court. It was argued that even if it be taken that no refusal was obtained from Budha Singh, sec. 129 of the Alwar Revenue Code does not give any right to Budha Singh to have the sale declared invalid and if he had any right by virtue of being a collateral, the most he could do was to file a suit for pre-emption. 9. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. 129 of the Alwar Revenue Code does not give any right to Budha Singh to have the sale declared invalid and if he had any right by virtue of being a collateral, the most he could do was to file a suit for pre-emption. 9. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion as to whether the learned District Judge was justified in interfering with the finding of fact of the learned Munsif regarding the refusal by Budha Singh in the circumstances of this case. I am of opinion that sec. 129 does not lay down that a sale of agricultural land from biswedar of the State made in favour of a resident of the State shall be invalid if no refusal is first taken from the collaterals of the alienor. On the other hand sec. 129 says that all residents of the State shall be entitled to purchase or take in mortgage agricultural land from biswedars of the State. It simply confers upon the collaterals a right that their refusal should first be obtained. This means that in case no refusal is taken from the collaterals they would have the option to enforce their rights to purchase the property by pre-emption. Of course the word pre-emption is not given in sec. 129. but the language of sec. 129 would simply suggest that collaterals whose refusals had not been obtained in the first instance shall have preferential rights. This they could do by filing a suit for pre-emption. Of course the mutation was refused by the revenue authorities on the ground that the sale was in contravention of sec. 129. But that was not a final order and under sec. 313 of the Alwar Revenue Code the proceedings before the Revenue Court were summary proceedings and the order of the revenue authorities were subject to judicial decision of civil or revenue courts. The fact therefore, that the revenue authorities of the then Alwar State refused mutation would not come in the way of the plaintiff in suing for declaration. 10. It may be noted that the language of clause (b) of sec. 129 is quite different from the language of clause (a). The fact therefore, that the revenue authorities of the then Alwar State refused mutation would not come in the way of the plaintiff in suing for declaration. 10. It may be noted that the language of clause (b) of sec. 129 is quite different from the language of clause (a). Clause (a) opens with the words "all residents of the State shall be entitled to purchase or take in mortgage......" Clause (b) runs as follows— "A person not being the resident of the State shall not be entitled to purchase or take in mortgage agricultural land in the State without the sanction of His Highness Government." If it were meant by clause (a) that a resident of the State shall not be entitled to purchase or take in mortgage unless the refusal was first obtained from collaterals the language of clause (a) would also have been like the language of cl,(b). The difference in the language of the two clauses clearly shows that the sale in favour of a resident of the State was not to be invalidated simply on the ground that no refusal of the collaterals had been obtained in the first instance, 11. Mr. Tewari argued that under the Alwar Pre-emption Act, no right of pre-emption could be enforced in contravention of any provisions of the Alwar Revenue Code and therefore, Budha Singh could not bring a suit for pre-emption. I do not think that the sale to a resident of the State without first obtaining the refusal of the collaterals was in contravention of any provisions of the Alwar Revenue Code and therefore, this argument of the learned counsel does not appeal to me. 12. I do not find any force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff respondent throughout.