GURDIT SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following pedigree table, which is not in dispute between the parties, would be helpful in disposing of this regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff appellants in a suit for possession by pre-emption of the agricultural land described in the plaint:-LABH SINGH ____________________________|___________________________ _ || | hazara--Widow Singh Smt. Inditara Singh (Plaintiff)Gurdial Singh (Plaintiff) (remarried many years ago.)| _______|_____________ _ | | wassan Singhmakhan Singh (Died on 27-2-1959)--Widow Smt. Puro (Vendor)

(2.) SMT. Puro, widow of Makhan Singh, has sold her share in the land described in the plaint which she was owning jointly with the plaintiff-appellants, as may appear from the copy of the latest jamabandi, Exhibit P. 1 for the years 1958-59. The registered sale deed relating to this transaction is Exhibit D. 1 dated 10-12-1963. The plaintiff-appellants, who are the father's brothers of Makhan Singh, the deceased husband of the vendor, have filed this pre-emption suit claiming a superior right on the grounds, firstly that they are collaterals of the last male holder and secondly that they are co-sharers in the holding from which the vendor has sold her share of the land. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the case falls in its entirety under Section 15 (2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. As the plaintiff-appellants are not related to the vendor in the manner specified in that sub-section, they have no right of pre-emption. As the case was found to fall under sub-section (2) in respect of the entire land said by Smt. Puro, sub-section (1) of S. 15 was held to be inapplicable so that the plaintiff-appellants had no right of pre-emption even on the ground of their being co-sharers in the land. In respect of a half share in the land, it is conceded by the appellants that Smt. Puro had succeeded through her husband and that Clause (b) of S. 15 (2) would be applicable. As regards the other half share in the land, Smt. Indi, the mother of the deceased, was entitled to succeed along with the deceased's widow to an equal share. Smt. Indi was alive at the time of the sale and there was no question in the devolution of any part of her property having taken place by inheritance, succession or reversion during her lifetime. The question is whether in respect of that other half share in the land, Smt. Puro vendor could be described to have succeeded through her father or brother or husband or son.

(3.) THE last male holder of this land was Makhan Singh who had died on 27-2-1959, that is to say, some years after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. On his death, the land was to devolve on his heirs according to the provisions of that Act and there was no question of custom being the rule of decision in the matter of succession to this land. Sections 8, 9 and 10 read with the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act which were to govern the succession make no distinction between ancestral or non-ancestral nature of the property or as to where from or how the deceased had got it.