GURDIAL SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is vendee's appeal arisen out of a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. The plaintiff claimed his right of pre-emption on the basis that he is the father's brother's son of the vendor. The defence taken by the vendees was that since they were the tenants on the suit land under the vendor at the time of sale, therefore, in view of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which is reproduced hereunder, the sale is not pre-emptible :-

(2.) The only issue which survives in this second appeal is Issue No. 8. The trial Court decided this issue in favour of the vendees- defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff-pre-emptor before the Senior Subordinate Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, Karnal, the finding on this issue was reversed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. It was held by the lower appellate Court that at the most the vendees could be said to be the tenants under the mortgagee, and, therefore, were not saved under Section 17-A. Reliance for the purpose was placed on Charan Singh v. Jagir Singh and others, 1971 PunLJ 157

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the lower appellate Court has erred in reversing the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 8. The main argument of the learned counsel was that as per the definition of "land-owner" given in Section 2(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the mortgagee shall be deemed to be the land-owner, and, therefore, if the vendees were tenants under the mortgagee as held by the lower appellate Court, they should be deemed to be the tenants under the land-owner. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. This case is fully covered by the authority reported in Charan Singh's case of this Court and was rightly relied upon by the lower appellate Court. No judgment to the contrary has been cited before me.