BEHARI LAL Vs. MOTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional District Judge Gurgaon reversing on appeal the decision of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs brought the present suit for possession of the land in suit by pre-emption on the ground that they were the tenants of the land and as such were entitled to pre-empt the same by reason of Section 17 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The land in dispute was sold by Nemi Chand to Behari Lal and others, defendants 2 to 17, by a registered deed of sale dated the 16th August, 1954, for a sum of Rs. 20,340/-, the area sold being 45 bighas 4 biswas. The present suit was filed on the last date of limitation, that is, the 16th August, 1955, by Motla, Harphul and Tulla. They claimed to be the tenants of the vendor and, therefore, brought a suit under Section 17 of the Act. They did not accept that the sale was for a sum of Rs. 20,340/-; according to them the value of the land was Rs. 5,000/-. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the short ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the requirements of Section 17 of the Act. At this stage, it will be proper to set out the requirements of Section 17. They are -

(3.) So far as the second requirement is concerned, I have already stated the findings of the trial Court, and I will mention the finding of the lower appellate Court a little later.The pre-emptors preferred an appeal to the District Judge which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the second requirement was satisfied. It appears, however, that he did not grasp the reasoning on the basis of which the trial Court had held that the second requirement had not been satisfied. It appears that the lower appellate Court was of the view that all that had to be proved was three years' possession by a tenant and not possession for four years. The lower appellate Court merely looked at Section 17(ii) minus its two clauses (a) and (b), and, therefore, in view of the admission of the plaintiff-vendees that the plaintiffs were in possession for a period of three years it reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The vendees who are dissatisfied with this decision have come up in second appeal to this Court.