Ajaib Singh vs Buta Singh

P.D. Sharma, J.—This litigation has arisen out of a Sale of 9 kanals of land situate at village Jainpur by Chhinder Singh. Malkiat Singh and Pritam Singh minors through Charan Singh their father as guardian by one registered sale deed dated 21st February, 1964, for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of Ajaib Singh. Buta Singh minor son of Mehar Singh instituted a suit, for possession of this land on payment of Rs. 6,000/- by way of pre-emption. It was alleged that he is son of the vendors father''s brother, that Rs. 6,000/- only were paid and the balance of Rs. 2,000/- was entered in the deed to :scare away the pre-emptor. Ajaib Singh defendant-vendee contested the suit and in doing so denied the plaintiff''s right to, pre-empt the sale and added that the sum of Rs. 8000/- was paid and fixed in good faith, that he had spent Rs. 2,000/ on improvement of the land after the sale. He also urged that the suit was barred by time.

Following issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption?

Whether the sale price was fixed or paid in good faith? If not, what is the market value of the land in suit ?

Whether the suit is barred by time?

Whether the plaint-does not disclose any cause of action?

4-A. Whether the defendant has made any improvements on the land in dispute? If so, to what extent and is he entitled to be reimbursed?

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the, plaintiff and Issue No. 2 in favour of the defendant and issues Nos. 4 and 4-A against the defendants. In the result the plaintiff was granted a decree for possession of the land on payment of Rs. 8,000/- on or before 10th June 1966. The defendant-vendee''s appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Ludhiana failed. He has come up in second appeal to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the defendant appellant urged that the suit was barred by time in as much as the appellant had got into possession of the land on the date vendors agreed to sell the land in his favour. The question of limitation was not agitated before the first appellate Court but otherwise also it has no merit. The sale deed admittedly was written on 20th of February, 1964, and was registered on 21st February, 1964. The suit was instituted on 19th February, 1965, i.e. within one year from the date of the execution of the registration of the sale deed. The Learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the agreement should have started from the date of the execution of the agreement to sale by the vendors. Exhibit D. 1. i.e. 1st July, 1963. I am not in agreement with him. In cases of the present category the period of limitation starts from the date of the execution of sale deed by the vendors which in this case is 20th February. 1964. My view finds support from Ram Peara v. Rup Lal AIR 1918 Lah. 79 which laid down.-

Under Article, 10, Schedule 1, Limitation Act the time from which the period of limitation begins to run against the pre-emptor is the date on which the purchaser takes, under the sale sought to be impeached, physical possession of the whole of the property sold. Where, however, under an arrangement, with the, vendor the vendee takes possession of the property which he intends to purchase before the actual sale of the property to him, the possession cannot be said to be under the sale, and must in law, for the purpose of applying Article 10, schedule 1, Limitation Act, be referred to the subsequent date on which the, sale actually takes place, and it is from this subsequent date of the actual sale that the period of limitation prescribed by the said Article begins to run against the pre emptor.

The decision in Bai Chander Mani Vs. Bhagirath Ahir and Others, is also to the same effect. The suit as held by the trial Court was well in time. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.