AJMER SINGH Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question that arises in this appeal is whether a sale of agricultural property which is void being in contravention of Section 31 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), can be pre-empted under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The trial Court answered it in the negative and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. In appeal, however, the Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trail Court on this point and decreed the claim of the plaintiff-respondent Mukhtiar Singh on payment of Rs. 15,062/ -.

(2.) THE vendee, Ajmer Singh, Pritam Singh, Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh, purchased the land in dispute measuring 58 Kanals 10 Marlas, situate in Dharamgarh, by means of registered sale-deed dated 18th March, 1967. It is not disputed that the vendor Dhanna Singh had acquired the proprietary rights under Section 23 (2) of the Act and sale certificate was issued in his favour under Section 23 (3) of the Act on 16th April, 1964. Section 31 of that Act provides:-" 31. Bar of transfer of ownership rights. (1) No land in respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired under this Chapter shall be transferred by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise during a period of six years from the date of a certificate issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 23: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the land mortgaged with the State Government or the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank. Limited established under the Punjab Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957. (2) Any transfer of land made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be void and no registering authority shall register any document evidencing such transfer under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908 ). "

(3.) THE sale by Dhanna Singh having been made on the 18th March, 1967, was clearly in violation of this provision was the sale certificate in favour of Dhanna Singh was issued on 16th April, 1964 and the period of six years had thus not expired at the time Dhanna Singh entered into sale in dispute. Relying on this provision, the vendees urged that at that time the suit for pre-emption brought by Mukhtiar Singh was not competent. The learned trial Jude accepting this plea of Dhanna Singh, dismissed the suit, but on appeal a different view was taken and reversing the finding of the trial Court. the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, decreed the pre-emptors suit as stated earlier.