CHANDU Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the dispute, in this Letters Patent Appeal, which has arisen out of a pre-emption, suit depends on the interpretation to be put on the expression "has succeeded through her father or brother" occuring in Clause (a), Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. That Section enumerates persons in whom the right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 has three Clauses, (a), (b) and (c). Clause (a) mentions persons in whom the right of preemption will vest where the sale is by a sole owner. Clause (b) enumerates pre-emptors where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly. Sub-clause "fourthly" of Clause (b) gives the right of pre-emption to other co-sharers. Clause (c) mentions persons in whom the right of pre-emption will vest if the sale is made by the co-sharers jointly. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 reads:-

(2.) Before taking up the controversy about the interpretation of the expression "has succeeded through her father or brother" in Sub-section (2), the facts leading to that controversy may be stated-Chandu appellant and Sidhu were the sons of Ran Singh and grand sons of Nag. Nag had a brother, named Gulab. Gulab had two sons, Shibu and Dulla. Shibu had died about 60 years ago without leaving any issue. His widow, Shrimati Arko, had succeeded to his estate. Shrimati Arko had died in 1963. Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi, daughter of Dulla, who had already died, had succeeded to Shrimati Arko. Out of the estate inherited from Shrimati Arko, Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi had sold, by a registered sale-deed dated the 10th June, 1963, land, measuring 131 Kanals and 14 Marias, alongwith a Chhapar and a Taur, situated in village Chhatara, Tehsil Una, in favour of Hans Raj for a consideration of Rs. 3,500.00. Hans Raj had sold 7 Kanals. out of the land, purchased by him, to Rala Ram and Fithu. Chandu and Sidhu (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) had filed a suit against Hans Raj. Ralla Ram and Fithu, for declaration and possession. The plaintiffs had alleged that Shrimati Arko had already, in her life time, gifted the Chhapar which had been sold by Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi, to the plaintiffs, and that Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi had not inherited the Chhapar and had no authority or power to sell it. The plaintiffs had, further, alleged that the Taur belonged to them and its sale by Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi was illegal. The plaintiffs had sought declaration that the; Chhapar and the Taur belonged to them and their sale by Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi was illegal and void.

(3.) The plaintiffs had prayed for possession of the land sold by pre-emption on payment of Rs. 1,000.00. The plaintiffs had based their right of pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers with Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi and were also her collaterals. ' The plaintiffs had alleged that the consideration of Rs. 3,500.00, recited in the sale deed, was fictitious and that only a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 had been paid to Shrimati Mukhtiar Devi as sale price. The plaintiffs had, further, alleged that the sale by Hans Raj defendant of a portion of land in favour of Ralla Ram and Fithu was not binding upon them and did not affect their right to pre-empt the sale in favour of Hans Raj.