CHANDRUP SINGH Vs. DATA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the purely statutory right of Pre-emption conferred by S. 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, resting on blood relationship alone, is a heritable right at all--has come to be the core question at the very threshold in this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) On July, 1978, Jaila sold land in dispute to Chandroop Singh and Megh Singh defendant-petitioners for a sum of Rupees 7,000/-. On July 16, 1978, Data Ram filed a suit for Pre-emption on the factual plea that he was the father's brother's son of the vendor obviously resting his claim under Section 15(1)(a) Thirdly, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913(hereinafter called 'the Act'). While the suit was still pending in the trial Court, Data Ram aforesaid died on June 7, 1980. Later, on Aug. 2, 1980, the suit was dismissed in default by the trial Court on the basis that the plaintiff-pre-emptor had expired. However, on August 26. 1980, within a month of the aforesaid dismissal, Ishwar, son of the deceased-plaintiff, pre-emptor Data Ram, put in an application claiming to continue the suit alone with the widow, sons and daughters as the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff. This application was opposed by the vendee-defendants on the firm ground that Data Ram deceased, had claimed to pre-empt the land as the father's brother's son of the vendor, and since none of the legal representative had an independent right of pre-emption, therefore, they could not be substituted in place of the pre-emptor. The trial Court relying on Jhabhu v. Multan Singh, (1979) 81 Pun LR 636, allowed the application and brought the legal representatives on record, in place of the plaintiff-pre-emptor. Vendee- defendants then preferred the present civil revision.

(3.) This case first came up before my learned brother G. C. Mital, J. sitting singly. In a remarkably lucid reference order, he noticed an apparent conflict of authority betwixt the two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Smt. Joginder Kaur v. Jasbir Singh, (1965) 67 Pun LR 1158, and Gurdev Kaur v. Smt. Chanan Kaur, AIR 1971 Punj & Har 416. Consequently, the matter was referred for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench, apparently on the assumption that the right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Act had some attributes of heritability, it was opined that the substantial question of law arising in the revision was an urder :- "Whether the heirs of the pre-emptor who die during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court can continue the suit even if all or any of them did not have independent right of pre-emption ?"