GURNAM KAUR Vs. RALLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this pre-emption suit the only point which has to be determined is whether Jai Dev, the vendor, sold a share out of the joint Khata of the land and whether the pre-emptors-respondents, Ralla Ram etc., are entitled to pre-empt the land in dispute in view of the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Admittedly, Jai Dev and Ralla Ram etc., the pre-emptors, are co-sharers in Khata No. 16, Jai Dev sold land comprising Khewat Khatauni No. 16/59 measuring 32 Kanals comprising Khasra Nos. 8/14 Min (1-16), 8/16(8-0), 8/17(8-0), 8/24(7-2) and 8/25 (7-2), which was in his possession as co-sharer, to the vendee Smt. Gurnam Kaur by a sale-deed Exhibit D. 1 dated 21.5.1965. Ralla Ram and others claim superior right of pre-emption as against Smt. Gurnam Kaur, the vendee, on the ground that they are the co-sharers of Jai Dev, the vendor. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the pre-emptors, hence this appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Achhra Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atma Ram, the learned Counsel for the respondents. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that before the pre-emption suit can be decreed in view of the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, a finding has to be given that the sale in question is of a share out of the joint land or property. His contention is that if Jai Dev would have sold a share out of the joint Khata then the pre-emption suit could be maintained by the co-sharers. In the present case, only specific Khasra numbers of land measuring 32 Kanals were sold to the vendee and no share in the joint Khata was sold. Therefore, the pre-emption suit has been wrongly decreed by the Courts below.

(3.) Mr. Atma Ram the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other had, contended that from the statement of Jai Dev (D.W.6) coupled with the language of the sale-deed Exhibit D.1, it is proved that Jai Dev sold a share out of the joint Khata of which he is the co-sharer. Therefore, the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act could not be attracted and the plaintiffs are entitled to pre-empt the land in question. The learned Counsel distinguished the ruling reported in Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand and another,1970 PunLR 341, on the ground that in that case the question before the Full Bench was to whether the vendees from one co-sharer of the joint Khata could subsequently pre-empt the land under the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which was subsequently sold by another co-sharer on the ground that they are the co-sharers in the joint Khata. His contention is that in the present case, no such facts are involved.