VED PARKASH ETC. Vs. FAQIR CHAND ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two cross -appeals, R.S. As. 80 and 298 of 1965, directed against, the appellate decree of the learned District Judge, Sangrur (at Narnaul), dated 29th October, 1964. They arise out of the suit brought by Faqir Chand and Smt. Lajwanti for pre -empting the sale, dated 16th April, 1962, of 14 Bighas 18 Biswas of land situate in the revenue limits of Narnaul made by Bhopat Ram in favour of Ved Parkash, Atam Parkash, Jai Parkash and Naresh Parkash in equal shares for Rs. 800. The pre -emptors claim on the basis of their relationship with the vendor being his son and daughter, respectively. The vendees other than Ved Parkash contested the suit and it was pleaded, inter alia, that Ved Parkash and Atam Parkash vendees ' were tenants of the vendor at the time of the sale and, consequently, the suit to the extent of their one -half share was not competent. The vendees also claimed to have spent Rs. 1,800 on the improvements of the land. It was further pleaded that even if the Plaintiffs established their superior right of pre -emption, they would not be entitled to take actual possession of the land even with respect to the share of Jai Parkash and Naresh Parkash vendees. The learned trial Judge found it established that out of the four vendees Ved Parkash and Atam Parkash were tenants of the disputed land and in view of the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1995, the sale with respect to the share of these two vendees was not pre -emptible. Accordingly he decreed the Plaintiffs' claim to the extent of the half share of the other vendees, Jai Parkash and Naresh Parkash, on payment of Rs. 455.50, but directed:

(2.) THE Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved appealed to the Court of District Judge. They challenged not only the finding that Ved Parkash and, Atam Parkash held the land as tenants at the time of the sale, but also urged that they were entitled to actual possession of the land. The learned District Judge, while affirming the finding of the trial Court that at the time of sale Ved Parkash and Atam Parkash were holding the land as tenants -at -will and the sale so far as it related to their share in the property was not pre -emptible, however, held that their tenancy rights did not remain intact after the sale. In view of this later finding, the decree of the trial Court was modified and it was directed that the Plaintiffs in execution of the decree would obtain symbolic possession till they claimed actual possession by partition. Both the parties being dissatisfied have preferred these cross -appeals.

(3.) THE cross -appeal (R.S.A. 80 of 1965) is by two out of the four vendees, namely, Ved Parkash and Atam Parkash alone, who were holding the land as tenants. They have challenged the grant of symbolic possession to the Plaintiffs and pray that the decree of the trial Court be restored. It is contended on their behalf that in view of the finding that they were in possession of the entire land as tenants at the time of the sale, they had the right to hold the land and continue in possession till they are ejected in due process of law. I do not see much difference between the two decrees. Once a Plaintiff makes out his claim for pre -emption, he is entitled to a decree.