KALHA Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point worthy of consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent was a tenant at the time when he purchased the land in dispute or not. If he was a tenant at that time, then the suit for pre-emption filed by the appellant has to be dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court which is the final Court of fact held that a copy of the Khasra Girdawari Exhibit D.2 showed that the respondent was a tenant in respect of the land in dispute for Kharif 1965. On this basis that Court non-suited the appellant.

(2.) In this appeal, it has been argued that since the sale was made on March 5, 1965, even on the findings recorded by the learned District Judge the respondent was not a tenant at the time when the sale of the land in dispute was made to him. The other point raised is that at best the respondent was a tenant under the mortgagee and as such the protection of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) was not available to him.

(3.) I find no force in either of these two contentions. The copy of Khasra Girdawari Exhibit D.2 shows that the respondent was a tenant in respect of this land on 18th March, 1964. Entries in column No. 8 of this document show that the respondent had acquired this land on lease for one year. This implies that on March 6, 1965 he was also a tenant. It appears that the figure 1964 crept into the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court on account of some mistake because the Khasra Girdawari entry was prepared in Urdu language.