INDER SINGH Vs. GUIZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By registered sale deed dated July 26, 1963, Kartar Singh sold 6 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land bing a share in joint land, in favour of Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh respondents berein for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/ On January 15, 1964, Inder Singh instituted a suit for possession of the said land by pre-emption. Inder Singh plaintiff founded his claim on a superior right of preimoption over the vendees, Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh. The following pedigree table brings out the relationship of Kartar Singh vendor, Inder Singh plaintiff and Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh vendees :- Dharam Singh Narain Singh Inder Singh Kishan Singh (plaintiff-preemptor) Gulzara Singh Wattan Singh Kartar Singh (Vendees) (Vendor)

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit on July 21, 1965, and an appeal in the Court of District Judge against the trial Court's decision also failed. The vendees filed a second appeal in this Court which was allowed by S.N, Shanker, J. on September 21, 1967. Inder Singh plaintiff filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of S. N. Shanker, J. which was, by order dated April 5, 1968, referred to a Bench of three Judges and that is how this Letters Patent Appeal has come before us for disposal.

(3.) Since the sale in this case was in respect of a share out of Joint land by one of the co-sharers, the short question that falls for determination is the interpretation of section 15(1)(b) clause Thirdly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1 1913 (Punjab Act of 1913) as amended by Punjab Act No. 10 of 1960, the question being whether the plaintiff, who is the father's brother of the vendor, has a superior right of preemption over the vendees, who are the vendor's father's brother's sons. The learned Single Judge on the interpretation of the said section 15(l)(b) decided that the father's brother of the vendor did not have a superior right of pre emption over the vendees and all the relations mentioned in section 15(l)(b). Thirdly had equal right to pre-empt. The learned Single Judge observed: