JANG SINGH Vs. HARDIAL SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment: will dispose of three appeals, Jang Singh v. Hardial Singh, etc. (R.S.A. No. 1692 of 1960), Ranjit Singh, etc. v. Bega R.S.A. No. 1722 of 1960 and Chand Singh v. Balvinder Singh, etc. R.S.A. No. 970 of 1961, these having been referred by Single Judges for decision of a larger Bench. Jang Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ranjit Singh v. Bega were referred by Dua, J., on 29th of September, 1961, while it was represented in Chand Singh v. Balvinder Singh, to the referring Judge (Harbans Singh, J.), that a question of law was involved which had been referred to a larger Bench for decision in Jang Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ranjit Singh v. Bega. This is how these three regular second appeals have come to be heard together by this Bench.

(2.) IT would be best to deal first with the common question of law which provides the basis for this reference. An amendment was made by Punjab Act No. 3 of 1959 in the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu Act No. 13 of 1955), whereby certain sales of tenancy land were made non -pre -emptible. The amendment is embodied in the newly inserted Section 8A and is to this effect:

(3.) IN our opinion, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants have cogency and force. An individual sale to a tenant is not an absolute rule and in many cases tenants may have to be joined with others in the sale transactions. Section 8A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, is plainly a remedial piece of legislation providing, as it does, relief to tenants who have purchased the land comprised in the tenancy from the land -owner against; possible pre -emptors. The statute, as amended, provides that land comprised in the tenancy sold to a tenant is to be saved from any pre -emptive claims. There appears to be no rational ground to confine the amplitude of the relief to those tenants only who are the sole purchasers of the land comprised in the tenancy. There is indeed no reasoned answer to the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants that the land comprised in the tenancy of a tenant whose share could be separated from the others in a joint sale to him and others by a landlord would not be pre -emptible.