SAWAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law that falls for determination in this appeal is whether under the Punjab Pre -emption (Amendment) Act, 1960, a co -sharer can claim a pre -emptive right in respect of agricultural land which though at one time belonged to an occupancy tenant was at the time of sale vested in his widow as an absolute owner?

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are not disputed and may be briefly set out, Chandi, widow of Kishan Singh, sold the suit land comprised of one fourth share of 76 Kanals and 8 marlas for a sum of Rs. 4,000/ - by a registered sale -deed on 16th of December, 1959, to the four appellants Sawan Singh and others. The respondent Amar Nath brought a suit for pre -emption setting himself up as a co -sharer of Chandi and claimed pre -emption on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - which, according to him, was the actual price paid for the land. The suit was decreed by the trial Judge in favour of the respondent who was required to pay the full price of Rs. 4,055/ -. This decree has been affirmed in appeal preferred by the vendees, who have come in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) IN the instant case, Chandi no doubt succeeded to the rights of occupancy tenancy as the widow of Kishan Singh, but later these self same rights assumed a new character when their conversion into an absolute estate in her favour took place. This absolute estate is separate and distinguishable from the rights to which she had succeeded as a widow of Kishan Singh and to my mind clause (b) of sub -section (2) has no application for the simple reason that the suit property which is now an absolute estate of Chandi cannot be regarded as one to which she had "succeeded through her husband". The learned counsel for the respondent has further relied on Sukh Ram v. Lekh Ram I.L.R. 1960 Punj. 47, which is another Division Bench authority of this Court (Bhandari C.J. and Falshaw J.). In the judgment delivered by Falshaw J., as the Chief Justice then was, it was said that though a widow entered into enjoyment of the occupancy rights in succession to her deceased husband, she only enjoyed a widow's estate, but the effect of her own conversion of these occupancy rights into a full ownership in accordance with the provision of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, is that she became an absolute owner of the land and was entitled to alienate it in any manner she liked. Reliance was placed on Narain Singh v. Mst. Sada Kaur 26 P.L.R. 164=I.L.R. 6 Lah. 134, where it was held by Broadway and Jai Lal JJ., that the widow acquired the occupancy rights for herself and not as representative of her deceased husband and her right to dispose of such self -acquired property was unlimited.