PRABHU DAYAL Vs. BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIRIA, respondent No. 6, sold agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals comprised of Killa No, 19 Rectangle No. 148 out of Khewat No. 558/531, Khatuni No. 706/666 for a mm of Rs. 5,500/- to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 vide registered sale deed dated June 1, 1974. The appellant filed this suit for possession of the said land by way of pre-emption alleging that he was the co-sharer in the Moti Patti Shamlat and as such had a superior right as opposed to the vendees The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand, (1970) 72 P. L. R. 341, wherein it was held that the purchaser of a share of specified kilia numbers in specified rectangles will not succeed in obtaining a decree by way of pre emption when a specified share in another rectangle is sold subsequently in which rectangle the original purchaser has no right because he does not become a co sharer in the other rectangles. Having failed in appeal as well, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.

(2.) BOTH the courts below have not noticed this fact, as is evident from Exhibit P-4, that appellant Prabhu Dyal also purchased the specific Khasra Numbers in Khatuni No. 706 of the said Khewat Number 558/531. According to the Full Bench decision in Lachhman Singh's case (supra), Prabhu Dayal would not become a co sharer in the Khewat by purchasing specific khasra numbers. However, the ratio of this decision runs counter to the ratio of Full Bench decision in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 P. L. J. 204. Although the point involved in the two cases was slightly different but according to the ratio of the Full Bench, Prabhu Dayal would become Co-sharer in the Khewat even if he had purchased specific Khasra Numbers out of that Khewat. There is, therefore direct conflict between the ratio of the said two Full Bench decisions of this Court which needs to be resolved. This case, therefore, may be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for referring the matter to a Larger Bench for settling the conflict between the two Full Bench decisions noticed above. JUDGMENT OF LARGER BENCH S. S. Sodhi, Act. C. J.

(3.) THIS reference to the Full Bench is rendered infructuous by the abatement of the appeal.