DIDAR SINGH Vs. ISHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 251 to 256 of 1981, as the question involved is the same in all the appeals.

(2.) Vide different six sale-deeds, Balbir Singh and Raghbir Singh, sold the suit land to the vendees-appellants. Ishar Singh, plaintiff, filed the suits for possession by way of pre-emption on the ground that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant whereas the vendees were trespassers and, thus, he had a superior right of pre-emption. The suits were contested inter alia on the ground that the property, in dispute, was urban immovable property and that the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption. The learned trial Court ultimately decreed the suits filed by plaintiff. The decree decreeing the suit of the plaintiff giving rise to Regular Second Appeal No. 251 of 1981, was passed in the following terms :

(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that after the decree in the trial Court was passed on October 1, 1980, the vendees got the order of ejectment dated October 3, 1980, against the plaintiff and in execution, thereof also got possession of the suit land on October 11, 1980, Civil Miscellaneous Applications for producing the certified copies of the ejectment order dated October 3, 1980, passed against the plaintiff, and the report of the delivery of possession, by way of additional evidence, were also moved in this Court. It is surprising that no such application was moved before the lower appellate Court though the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence at this stage did exist then also. On the basis of the order of ejectment dated October 3, 1980, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the ownership rights in the land will vest in the plaintiff-pre-emptor after the pre-emption money was deposited as provided under Order XX Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code), and the ejectment order was passed earlier, the plaintiff was no more entitled to the decree, on the basis of the right of pre-emption, which according to the learned counsel, came to an end the moment the ejectment order was passed. According to the learned counsel, the right of pre-emption must continue till the pre-emption money in pursuance of the trial Court decree was deposited and also at the time of the passing of the decree by the appellate Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relief upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Jabir Singh,1974 PunLR 482. A contention was also raised that since there was deficiency in the payment of the court-fee, no valid decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, and that the deficiency in the court-fee made up subsequently, in accordance with the directions of the trial Court in the decree, was of no consequence. In any case, argued the learned counsel, before the deficiency in the court-fee was made good on October 28, 1980, already the order of ejectment was passed against the plaintiff pre-emptor and, therefore, the pre-emption decree obtained by him on the basis of his tenancy was liable to be set aside.