LACHHMAN DASS Vs. JAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (the Act, for short) is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th May, 2001 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No. 38 of 1998 dismissing the appeal arising from a judgment and decree dated 15.11.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Una in Civil Appeal No. 26/92/91 affirming a judgment and decree dated 7.10.1991 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Amb in Civil Suit No. 211/85 RBT No. 635/89 dismissing the Civil Suit filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) The fact of the matter is under: Respondent No. 9-Desh Raj was owner of the suit property. Appellant (plaintiff) was a tenant in respect thereof. By reason of a deed of sale dated 27.4.1982, Desh Raj transferred the suit land in favour of Jagat Ram (Respondent No. 1-Defendant No. 2) and Gurbaksh Kaur, wife of Jagat Ram (Respondent No. 2-Defendant No. 2). Jagat Ram and Gurbaksh Kaur, in turn, by a registered deed of sale dated 11.10.1982 transferred their right and interest therein in favour of the appellant. Respondent No. 8-Chander Bala is the daughter of Respondent No. 9-Desh Raj. Claiming a right of pre-emption in terms of the Act, she filed a suit for pre-emption impleading only the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein. A compromise was entered into by and between the parties in the said proceedings. A consent decree was passed on the basis thereof by the learned Subordinate Judge, stating:

(3.) Allegedly, she was put in possession of the said land in purported execution of the said decree of pre-emption. A deed of gift was executed by Defendant-Respondent No. 1 on 24.1.1984 in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein, who are sons and daughters of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They applied for mutation of their names, which was granted in their favour by an order dated 28.1.1985. Assailing the said order of mutation as also the said consent decree, a suit was filed by the appellant herein. The said suit was dismissed. As indicated hereinbefore, the first appeal as also the second appeal preferred there against have also been dismissed. The original Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 only are before us.