AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 208 wordsN.K. Kapoor, J.—This is vendees'' regular second appeal in a preemption suit. Plaintiffs claim a superior right of preemption being a cosharer. Suit was decree by the trial Court subject to the plaintiffs'' depositing decretal amount less the amount deposited by them as Zera Panjam. Appeal filed by the defendantsvendees too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
Vide Punjab Preemption (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1995 the right of Co sharer to preempt the sale has now been taken away. Thus, today there does not exist a right of preemption in favour of a cosharer. Appeal being in continuation of original proceedings, amendment made in the Act will obviously govern the pending proceedings. This being so, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be set aside on this ground alone. Otherwise too, the matter has now been settled by the apex Court in Karan Singh and others v. Bhagwan Singh and others, 1996(2) RRR 105(SC) : JT 1996(1) SC 618 and in Ramjilal and others v. Ghisa Ram etc. 1996(2) RRR 456(SC) : JT 1996(2) SC 649.
Accordingly, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs.
No order as to costs.