Parkash Singh vs Shiv Dayal Singh

V.K. Jhanji, J.—At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the Regular Second Appeal is taken on Board for final disposal.

This regular second appeal arises out of suit filed by plaintiff (respondent herein) for possession of suit land by way of preemption. Plaintiffs alleged that they have been cultivating the suit land as tenants for the last so many years and being tenants under the vendor on the date of sale, have a superior right to preempt the sale of the land in dispute. Plaintiffs further alleged that they are also cosharers in the land in dispute and thus, entitled to preempt the sale. Suit on contest by the defendants was dismissed by the trial Court. In the trial Court, plaintiffs had only stressed that they being the cosharers have a superior right to preempt the sale. The issue that the plaintiffs being tenants are entitled to preempt the sale, was not pressed. Trial Court did find that plaintiffs were cosharers in the land on the date of sale and had a superior right to preempt the sale, but dismissed the suit on finding that they (plaintiffs) are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit. It was also held that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file suit. In appeal by the plaintiffs, learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and as a consequence thereof, suit of plaintiffs for possession by way of preemption on the ground that they were cosharers and had a superior right against the defendants who were strangers, was decreed. Hence, this second appeal.

In this second appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants has contended that in view of the Haryana Act No. 10 of 1995 which came into effect from 7.5.1995, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

On going through the amendment, referred to above, and the two judgments of the Apex Court, namely, Karan Singh and others v. Bhagwan Singh (dead) by LRs and others, 1996 PLJ 89 : 1996(2) RRR 105 (SC) and Ramji Lal and others v. Ghisa Ram etc., 1996 PLJ 1991 : 1996(2) RRR 456 (SC), I am of the view that plaintiffs have no right to preempt the sale in question as under the Haryana Amendment Act No. 10 of 1995, a cosharer no longer has a right to preempt the sale of the agricultural land. As per the amendment, the only person entitled under the amended law to avail the right of preemption is the tenant. As already noticed, plaintiffs before the trial Court, had already given up their claim to preempt the sale on the basis of tenancy.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with no orders as to costs.