HARNAM SINGH Vs. NARAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment and order of ours would dispose of Appeal Nos. 91, 92, 168 and 169 of 1972, filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as all these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts on which there is no dispute, are as follows :-

(2.) In the appeals filed on behalf of the vendees, that is, Letters, Patent Appeal Nos. 91 and 92 of 1972 Mr. Surjit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that Harnam Singh purchased the share of his co-vendees, that the co-vendees transferred their share in favour of Harnam Singh in recognition of his right of tenancy, that in such a situation Harnam Singh appellant should be regarded to have been substituted for the vendees who transferred their share in the original bargain of sale and that he could defend the suit on all pleas which he could have taken, had the sale been initially made in his own favour, and that by the transfer of the land by the co-vendees in favour of Harnam Singh it would be deemed as if the entire sale was made by Sita Ram in favour of Harnam Singh who admittedly was a tenant of the entire land, and on the basis of this contention, the learned counsel sought to argue that under the provisions of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the suits of the pre-emptors were liable to be dismissed in their entirety.

(3.) After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The relevant provisions of Section 17-A of the Act with which we are concerned, reads as under :-