(1) THESE appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court dated 14/12/1983 in RSA No. 1703 of 1983 and batch. (2) THE only question is whether the appellant can claim pre-emption by virtue of the fact that he has purchased the property from the karta of the joint family. Admittedly, one Gopal Krishan Chawla was the karta of the family. Initially, one Sunder Das, father of Gopal Krishan Chawla, agreed to sell the property to the appellant under an agreement of sale, dated 24/5/1965. Ultimately, the suit filed by the appellant was decreed for specific performance, pursuant to which Gopal Krishan Chawla had executed the sale deed on 25/6/1979. Thereafter, the children of Gopal Krishan Chawla and the tenants filed the above suits for pre-emption. The trial court dismissed the suit as against the sons but decreed the suit in favour of the daughters by name - Meeka and Madhu and also in favour of tenants. On appeal, it was confirmed and second appeal was dismissed. (3) BY operation of Section 10 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short "the Act"), in case of a sale by joint owners, no party to such a sale shall be pre-empted to claim a right of pre-emption. It is seen that Gopal Krishan Chawla, being the karta of the joint family had sold the property pursuant to the decree of specific performance. Therefore, the daughters, though may not be coparceners but, being members of the joint family, are bound by the sale made by the karta or the manager of the Hindu joint family. The sale was obviously for family necessity. The courts below, therefore, were not right in granting the decree in favour of Meeka and Madhu. (4) HOWEVER, the fact remains that the suits filed by the tenants, have also been decreed. By operation of clause fifthly of Ss. (1-b) of Section 15 of the Act, the tenants are entitled to the pre-emption. The validity of clause fifthly was upheld by this court in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana. Accordingly, we hold that the decree of pre-emption granted in favour of the tenants has rightly been decreed. In consequence, the appellant does not get any benefit under the orders of this court though we hold that the daughters Meeka and Madhu are not entitled to claim pre-emption of the property. Accordingly, we hold that the decree of pre-emption granted in favour of the tenants has rightly been decreed. In consequence, the appellant does not get any benefit under the orders of this court though we hold that the daughters Meeka and Madhu are not entitled to claim pre-emption of the property. (5) THE appeals are dismissed in respect of the suits for pre-emption by a the tenants. The suit filed by the daughters stands dismissed. However, no consequence would flow therefrom since the suits filed by the tenants have been decreed and we have affirmed in their judgment. No costs. (6) IT is not in dispute that Meeka and Madhu have deposited the preemption amount in 1983 in the trial court and the amount is lying in the deposit. In view of the fact that we upset the decree, the amount is to be deposited by the tenants instead. We permit Meeka and Madhu to withdraw the amount from the trial court and the tenants are directed to deposit the pre-emption money as directed by the trial court, pro rata within a period of two months from today. In addition, the tenants are directed to pay interest on the amount deposited by Meeka and Madhu @ 10% from the date of the deposit till the date of withdrawal.