DHARA SINGH Vs. RAMJIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-pre-emptor lost his cause before brother's Courts as even though he was a co-sharer but being brother of vendor he was denied the relief asked for by him in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana and others, 1986 2 SCC 249 and Jagdish and others v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal and others, 1987 PunLJ 14. In a later decision, however, recorded in ''Bhikha Ram v. Ram Sarup and others, 1991 2 RRR 532 the matter was reconsidered by the Supreme Court and it was held thus :-

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-vendee, however, contends that when the case was decided by the Courts below, decisions of Supreme Court in Atma Parkash and Jagdish held the field and subsequent change in law cannot result in allowing the present appeal as the law then holding the field was applied by the Courts below. There is no substance whatsoever in this contention as appeal is continuation of suit.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and so confirmed by the Appellant Court are set aside. The suit of plaintiff is decreed on payment of Rs. 83,000/- plus registration changes and other expenses that might have been incurred in getting the sale deed registered. The suit shall, however, stand decreed subject to payment of amount aforesaid within two months failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.