SURESH WHIG Vs. FREDY WEDI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for pre -emption claiming to be a tenant protected by the Haryana Amendment Act 10, 1995 to the Punjab Pre - emption Act, 1913 which has failed in both the courts below. The suit was filed in the year 2007 to pre -empt the sale deed dated June 11, 1996 with respect to the tenanted land when the defendants -vendees purchased the suit land. The plaintiff based his claim on a pattanama or lease deed. This document has been disbelieved by the courts below as one not above suspicion. The courts have noticed the correct position that a suit to pre - empt a sale deed suffers limitation of one year from the date of execution of sale deeds. Section 30 of the Act provides limitation to bring suits for pre - emption and reads:

(2.) THE plaintiff has been non -suited by both the courts of fact not just by disbelieving the validity of the pattanama but also on account of the suit being barred by limitation prescribed for instituting pre -emption suits. Even assuming that the plaintiff is continuously tilling the property in dispute, as his counsel makes one believe, he still does not appear to possess any actionable right to seek a nullification of the sale deeds through the statutory right to pre -emption afforded by the 1995 Haryana Amendment to the Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1913 favourable to tenants alone while abrogating the rights of co -sharers in village agricultural land. Section 15 [amended] reads: "Right of Pre -emption to vest in tenant - The right of pre -emption in respect of sale of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor/vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof." The plaintiff was unable to show that the purchasers of the disputed land had in the year 1996 bought encumbered land or that defendants had notice of the appellant as tenant in lawful possession recorded in the revenue entries on or prior to the date of the sale.

(3.) THEN the learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mansu vs. Shadi Ram, : (1996) 3 SCC 97 to contend that section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 provides a presumption attaching to tenancy. Once it is proved that person is a tenant over the land in dispute he shall be presumed to have continued till he is lawfully evicted or tenancy was abandoned. The judgment proceeds on the assumption that person was tenant but in the present case the pattanama/lease deed has been disbelieved concurrently by the courts below as not a document worthy of reliance or one which inspires faith. The case is therefore dissimilar and distinguishable on facts and would not be binding on the issues involved in the present case where valid tenancy under former landowner is not established on the evidence on record.