RIKHI RAM Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit for pre-emption filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 - hereinafter called - the Pre-emption Act. The suit land is situated in the State of Haryana to which the provisions of the Act aforesaid are still applicable.The land belonged to Smt. Shanti, respondent No. 3. The appellants were the tenants of the disputed land under her. She sold the land to respondents 1 and 2 on the 21st June,1965. The land sold measured 176 kanals 4 marlas. The plaintiffs claimed the right of pre-emption in respect of the agricultural land in suit in accordance with clause 'Fourthly' of Section15 (1) (a) of the Pre-emption Act The suit was resisted by the vender-respondents on several grounds. It was decreed by the trial Court on the 20th June, 1967 in respect of a portion of the land. measuring 157 kanals 2 marlas. The vendees' appeal in the First Appellate Court failed on the 20th April, 1968. They succeeded, however, in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the basis of the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Chet Ram. (1971) 2 SCR 640 . A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

(2.) We may state a few more facts before noting down the points urged on behalf of the appellants. In the appellants' suit an order of injunction was made on 11-7-1966 restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from any portion of the suit land. But before the order of injunction was passed respondents 1 and 2 has filed an application before the Revenue Authorities under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - hereinafter called the Land Tenures Act - for ejectment of the appellants. An order of eviction was passed by the first authority on 22-5-1967:. that is to say, about a month prior to the passing of the decree by the trial Court. The appellants' appeal from that order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector on 14-9-l967. The High Court took the view that since the appellants had ceased to be the tenants of the land prior to the passing of the decree of pre-emption by the trial Court they were no longer qualified to get such a decree.

(3.) Mr. S. C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: