KALWA Vs. VASAKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ther sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 is an independent self-contained provision or is merely a proviso to the preceding sub-section (1) despite the non obstante clause with which it begins has come to be the spinal issue in this reference to a Bench of seven Judges.

(2.) It is because of a veiled doubt about the correctness of the settled law within this Court by a Bench of five Judges in Karta Ram v. Om Parakash, AIR 1971 Punj & Har 423 (FB) and a co-equal Bench in Prithi Pal Singh v. Milkha Singh, AIR 1976 Punj & Har 157 (FB), that this reference seems to have been necessitated. Because of this and indeed in view of an implied challenge to the very doctrine of precedent which it involves, the matter calls for an exhaustive and in-depth examination.

(3.) For issues so pristinely legal, the facts would invariably pale into insignificance. Yet law even in abstract must retain its connection with the terra firma of the factual matrix. It suffices, therefore, to advert to the facts relevant to the legal issue in Kalwa v. Vasakha Singh and others, R. S. A. No. 67 of 1969. Jagdish Chand was the original owner of the land in dispute, with other co-sharers. On his death, mutation No. 72 was sanctioned on May 21, 1965 in favour of his two sons--Inder Partap Singh and Ravi; Sarla Devi, Vijay Devi, Vijay Laxmi, his daughters; and Vidhya Wanti his widow, in equal shares. The heirs aforesaid sold the land to the vendees by a registered deed. Kalwa appellant brought a suit for pre-emption basing his claim on being a tenant of the land in dispute at the time of the sale and also being a co-sharer with the original owner Jagdish Chand and consequently with the vendors themselves. The suit was contested on behalf of the respondents and the material issues framed were Nos. (1) and (6) :--