Balwant Singh vs Mit Singh and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decision of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs'' suit to the extent of one-third for possession by pre-emption on payment of the proportionate sale consideration.

The land in suit was sold by Khunda Singh, Chamba Singh and Chanda Singh sons of Kishan Singh The sale is of land held by these three brothers jointly with other co-sharers of their shares. The present appellant, who is the son of one of the vendors, namely, Chanda Singh, brought a suit to pre-empt the entire sale. The trial Court held that the vendee was a co-sharer in the land sold and was also an agnate and, therefore, the plaintiff pre-emptor had no preferential right with regard to the sale by his father''s brothers. So far as his father''s share was concerned, he surely had a preferential right and his suit was accordingly decreed qua the sale by the father of his share. An appeal against this decision to the Senior Subordinate Judge met with no success.

It may be mentioned just for the sake of clarity that the suit, in the first instance, was decreed in toto and was remanded, on appeal. After remand, the decree has been passed for one-third of the land sold and that decree has been upheld in appeal. The pre-emptor, who is dissatisfied with this decision, has come up in second appeal to this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of this Court in Jangli v. Lakhmi Chand (1965) 67 P.I.R. 919 and contends that the suit should have been decreed in its entirety. This decision has been given on the basis of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as amended in 1960. So far as the present sale is concerned, the sale was made on the 27th of June, 1955. The suit was filed on the 30th June, 1955 and was decreed on the 31st October, 1957. In this situation, it is the unamended Act, recourse to which has to be made for the purposes of this case. The plaintiff could only pre-empt the sale by his father and not the sale by his father''s brothers because the vendee has a superior right with regard to the sale by his father''s brothers he being a co-sharer and an agnate.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this appeal, the same fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.