ISHAR DASS Vs. SANGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants.

(2.) The facts of this case are that one Teja Ram had sold the suit-land by means of a registered sale-deed to Sangat Singh, respondent, on 23rd June, 1965. Ishar Dass and Duni Chand, the present appellants, were tenants on the suit-land on the date of the sale. They had filed a suit for possession by pre-emption against Sangat Singh, defendant-respondent on the ground that they have been tenants on the suit-land under the vendors at the time of sale. During the pendency of the suit on 29th of March, 1967, orders were passed by the Assistant Collector for the ejectment of the appellants from the suit-land. So, on the date of the decree by the trial Court, that is the 30th of November, 1967, the appellants were not tenants on the suit-land as their tenancy had been terminated by a competent Court. The defendant-respondent had contended in the Courts below that the pre-emptor had to prove that he possessed the qualification for pre-empting the suit-land on the date of sale, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of decree by the trial Court.

(3.) On the other hand, the appellants had contended that under Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913) the plaintiff-tenant had only to show that he was a tenant on the suit-land on the date of sale and that it was not necessary for them to retain that qualification even at the time of passing of the decree by the trial Court. It was submitted that it will be impossible for a tenant to be a tenant on the suit-land under the vendor at the time of the passing of the decree in a suit for pre-emption. Reliance was placed for this contention on Sohan Singh V. Udho Ram and others,1967 PunLR 414 Malik Lah Labhu Masih V. Financial Commissioner, 1967 AIR(P&H) 449 and Umrao V. Nemi and others,1967 PunLR 887. The Courts below did not agree with the submission made by the plaintiffs-appellants and dismissed the suit.