SULTAN Vs. SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sardara, father of the appellant sold 150 Bighas of land in favour of the respondents and one Net Ram for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that he being the son of the vendor had a superior right of pre-emption. The learned Courts below have held that the sale in fact took place for a consideration of Rs. 8,500/- and since it had been made to persons two of whom were tenants in respect of this land, the appellant could not in exercise of his right of pre-emption get a decree for possession. For the second point, the learned Courts below placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Hari Singh v. Damodar and others,1966 68 PunLR 45. The view taken in that case was, however, reversed by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Damodar and others v. Hari Singh and others,1970 PunLJ 153. In the last mentioned case also the land was purchased by one tenant along with a stranger. The Division Bench dismissed the suit against the tenant and allowed a decree for pre-emption to the extent of land purchased by the stranger.

(2.) Shri A.S. Nehra, the learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn my attention to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Garib Singh v. Harnam Singh and others, 1971 PunLJ 578. In that case, it was laid down that where a vendee joined a stranger with him, he was relegated to the position of the latter and was unable to validly resist the suit for pre-emption. In that case, however, the sale was not in respect of agricultural land forming the tenancy of a vendee. The Full Bench reiterated the general view of law applicable to pre-emption cases. It cannot be disputed that Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is a special provision of law which in the nature of things off sets the general provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.

(3.) For reasons aforementioned, I follow the view taken in Damodar's case and decree the suit of the appellant to the extent of 1/3rd of the property in dispute on payment of 1/3rd of the amount of consideration found to have been passed between the vendees and the vendor. In view of the partial success of the appellant, there shall be no order as to costs. The appellant shall be entitled to deposit the pre-emption amount within two months from today. In case, he does not deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Appeal partly accepted.