(1.) This regular second appeal by Sant Singh and Koer Singh defendants, is directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Ferozepore, affirming in appeal the decree for possession by pre-emption of the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 32,000/- awarded in favour of Sucha Singh and Nazar Singh, plaintiff-respondents. The sole question which arises for determination in the present appeal is, whether the plaintiffs suit for pre-emption is barred by virtue of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Sham Kaur, defendant No. 3, sold the land in dispute measuring 40 bighas 11 biswas for Rs. 32,000/- in favour of Sant Singh and Koer Singh appellants as per sale deed dated 4th January, 1960, Exhibit D. 6. The sale deed was presented for registration that very day and it was entered in Sub-Registrar's register on 6th February, 1960. The land in dispute was at the time of sale in occupation of Bagga Singh, aged about 90 years, who was a tenant-at-will under Sham Kaur. Sant Singh appellant is the son of Bagga Singh and Koer Singh appellant is the grandson of Bagga Singh. Bagga Singh died on 26th January, 1960, and it is not disputed that he was survived by Sant Singh and Koer Singh as his heirs. Present suit for possession of the land in dispute by pre-emption was filed on 1st December, 1960, by two brothers Sucha Singh and Nazar Singh who claimed superior right of pre-emption on the ground that their father Lal Singh and brother of Bishan Singh, husband of Sham Kaur. The suit was resisted by the vendee-appellant,s, inter alia, on the ground that they were cultivating the land in dispute jointly with Bagga Singh sand that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 17-A of the Act. The trial Court over-ruled this objection and awarded a decree in favour of Sucha Singh and Nazar Singh plaintiff-respondents. The learned District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the suit was not barred on account of the above provisions of law and dismissed the appeal of the vendees.
(3.) In second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as the vendees become tenants of the land in dispute by the death of Bagga Singh before the filing of the suit for pre-emption the sale in their favour is not pre-emptible in view of the provisions of Section 17-A of the Act. In my opinion, there is force in this contention. The relevant portion of Section 17-A of the Act reads as under :-