BHUPINDAR SINGH Vs. SURINDAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARTAJ Singh sold 138 Kanals 19 Marlas of agricultural land to Shrimati Surinder kaur, and the sale was pre-empted by Bhupinder Singh a first cousin of the vendor alleging that as against the sale price of Rs. 24,500/- mentioned in the deed only rs. 21,500 had been paid. The suit was resisted on a number of grounds. It was denied that there was a superior right of pre-emption vesting in the pre-emptor and that certain improvements had been made on the land by the vendee and also of course that full price had been paid and not merely Rs. 21,500. It was further alleged that the suit was collusive and had been brought for the benefit of the vendor. One of the main defences however was that the pre-emptor was a big landowner in the sense that if he is allowed to take possession of the land in suit, he will be owning more than 30 standard acres which, according to Section 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, nobody is entitled to own or possess A plea was also raised that the right of pre-emption had been waived.

(2.) THE trial Court was satisfied that the price mentioned in the sale-deed, that is, rs. 24,500/ had been paid and also that the vendee had subsequently made certain improvements on the land The plea of waiver was overruled and so was the allegation regarding the collusive nature of the suit On the main plea the court, although holding that the pre-emptor owned already about 22 standard acres of land and the land in suit was about 20 standard acres and therefore the pre-emptor would be in this way owning more than 30 standard acres of land, found as a matter of law that this was not illegal and, in the result, decreed the pre-emptor's suit on payment of Rs. 28,640/-, the decree in terms being that the pre-emptor-decree-holder must deposit the amount in question by the 30th of september 1968 and will then be allowed possession of the suit land but failing that deposit by the due date the suit will stand dismissed. Against that decree the vendee appealed in which cross-objections were filed on behalf of the pre-emptor. The cross-objections were dismissed but while considering the appeal of the vendee, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the pre-emption decree granted in this case violated the terms of Section 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and it was, therefore, not possible to maintain the decree in that form The Court held that the pre-emptor was entitled to a decree only for that area of land which together with the land already owned by the pre-emptor would not exceed 30 standard acres, and, since the precise area had not been determined nor the price, the learned judge made an order of remand directing the trial Court to go into the question of facts, the intention of the learned Additional District Judge being that a decree should be granted to the pre-emptor only for that much area of land which together with his already owned land would come to 30 standard acres, and this should be on payment of proportionate price. Against this judgment of the additional District Judge directing a remand, both parties have filed appeals (S. A. O. 45 of 1963 and S. A. O. 10 of 1964), the pre-emptor-plaintiff claiming that no remand was necessary in this case and the decree, made by the trial Court, should stand, and, the vendee claiming that the suit should be dismissed and in any case compensation for improvements should have been more and also of course claiming that the direction of the lower Court, that a proportionate price of the land to be included in the pre-emption decree alone should be paid, is invalid. These appeals came in the first instance before one of us sitting alone but, as the question of law raised in the appeals appeared sufficiently important and a certain view of that matter had been taken in another case (Mangla v. Sukhminder Singh, r. S. A. No. 193 of 1962 D/-11-1-1963 Punj) decided by Mehar Singh J. , sitting alone, it was decided that these appeals be heard by a larger Bench and they have in this manner come before us. Both these appeals can be decided together quite conveniently, as in substance the question involved is one and only one. I say this because the other matters sought to be raised on behalf of the vendee are concluded by finding of fact reached by the learned Additional District Judge, and Mr. Puri is unable to show any reason for disturbing those findings.

(3.) THE question of law, which does require determination, turns on the effect of section 19-A of the the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. That section says-