TEK SINGH Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants in this appeal is as to "whether the right of ownership would vest in the pre-emptor as soon as the pre-emption money is deposited in the Court in time or when the possession is taken?"

(2.) The Plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which their suit for declaration that they are owners of half share in the land measuring 20 Kanals 13 Marias, comprising in Killa Nos. 140/715/2(2-13), 16(8-0), 25(8-0) and 157//5/1 (2-0), situated in the area of village Talwandi Aklian, Tehsil and District Bathinda, now in District Mansa, has been dismissed.

(3.) The case set up by the Plaintiffs is that Ganga Ram and Chanda Singh of village Talwandi Aklian were the owners in equal share of land measuring 10 Bighas 02 Biaswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 2885 (7-3) and 3976(2-19) from which the present Khasra Numbers have been carved out during the consolidation. It is alleged that Chanda Singh had sold his share in the land measuring 10 Bighas 02 Biswas to Defendants of set No. 2 which was pre-empted by Waryam Singh, father of the Plaintiffs by way of Civil Suit No. 136 dated 04.06.1969, which was decreed on 14.10.1971. Waryam Singh (father of the Plaintiffs) thus became the owner of half share of the aforesaid property, but mutation was not sanctioned in his name and Chanda Singh was continued to be shown as the owner in the revenue record. After the death of Chanda Singh, mutation No. 14352 was sanctioned wrongly in the name of Partap Singh at the back of the Plaintiffs to the extent of half share of land measuring 20 Kanals 13 Marias who, despite repeated requests, did not admit the Plaintiffs to be the owners of the half share and to get the mutation No. 14352 cancelled, which was sanctioned in his name, hence the present suit was filed. Defendant No. 1 Partap Singh and Defendant Nos. 9 to 13, all minors through their Court guardian, contested the suit and filed their joint written statement. The other Defendants, who were also served, did not Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Jagdev Singh, for Appellants; P.S. Dhaliwal, for choose to appear, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte. It was alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs had not become owner of the suit land as the decree would have enured if possession of the suit land had been taken after paying the balance sale consideration.