KARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question arising for consideration in this appeal relates to interpretation of section 8 -A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955, as amended by Punjab Act III of 1959.

(2.) ON the 8th June, 1959, by means of a registered sale deed, Bachitar Singh sold his one -twelfth share in agricultural land measuring (sic) Kanals 19 Marias and 1/18th share of 618 Kanals 9 Marias for Rs. 9000/ - to the appellant Karnail Singh and his brother Harnek Singh. Kishan Singh, an uncle of the vendor Bachitar Singh pre -empted the sale on the ground of relationship as well as because of his being a co -sharer in the khata. The vendees in contesting the suit not only denied the superior right claimed by Kishan Singh but also took up the pleas of limitation and waiver. They further contended that they had made improvements on the land, and in case a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to the cost of improvements, besides Rs. 9000/ - which they had paid for the sale. After the entire evidence in the case had been recorded and the suit was at the argument -stage, an application for amendment of the written statement was put in by Karnail Singh, one of the vendees. By this application, he sought to take up the plea that the land in dispute was not pre -emptible in accordance with the provisions of section 8 -A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, refused to allow the amendment on the ground that the application was belated, and its acceptance would result in reopening of the entire case. On merits, the learned Subordinate Judge held that though Kishan Singh was not entitled to claim superior right of pre -emption on the ground of his being a cosharer in the khata as the vendees had also an equal right, being cosharers in the same khata, he was entitled to pre -empt the sale being an uncle of the vendor Bachitar Singh. The pleas of limitation and waiver, as well as that relating to the improvements alleged to have been made by the vendees, were found against them, and accordingly, the learned trial Court decreed Kishan Singh's suit on payment of Rs. 9000/ -.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, since the findings on the various issues that had been decided against the vendees had not been challenged before him, the learned District Judge found no justification for interference with the decree of the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal with costs.