AMRIK SINGH MINOR Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who had obtained decree for preemption is in appeal by special leave challenging the reversion of that decree in second appeal by the high court.

(2.) There is no dispute that after the decree was passed defendants did not challenge the decree by filing an appeal in the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the direction regarding the quantum limited to a sum of Rs. 1,300. 00, the plaintiff carried an appeal to the first appellate court. There was no cross objection by the defendant at that stage which would have expanded the ambit and scope of the appeal before the fist appellate court. The decree was thus accepted by the defendant. Defendant preferred a second appeal. It was contended that with the repeal of the Punjab Preemption act in 1973, the decree of preemption became bad in law and could not be sustained. It may be stated that preemption in this case had been claimed on the basis of consanguinity plaintiff being the son of the alienor.

(3.) The sole contention which is raised in support of the appeal before us is that the decree of preemption passed on 19.11.1966 became final in the absence of challenge. Without a first appeal, there could not have been any challenge against the decree for preemption of the trial court in second appeal and the High court had no jurisdiction to set aside the decree which had become final.