KRISHAN Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of four connected Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 159 of 1994, 1914 of 1993, 172 of 1994 and 2011 of 1993 as the only question involved in all the matters is as to whether the right of pre -emption given to a co -sharer under the provisions of the Punjab Pre -emption Act would cease if during the pendency of appeal the vendee has/have successfully got the land partitioned?

(2.) THE facts of R.S.A. No. 159 of 1994 reveal that one Bhim Singh had sold his 374/2101 shares i.e. land measuring 18 kanals 14 marlas out of total area of 105 kanals 1 marla situated in village Deeg, description whereof has been fully given in para 1 of the plaint. The land aforesaid was purchased by Krishan, the appellant herein. The sale deed was registered on June 15, 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 74,800/ -. Ram Pal -plaintiff/respondent herein instituted a suit to pre -empt the sale on the ground that he was co -sharer in the land and had, thus, superior right to purchase the same. The suit of plaintiff -respondent was decreed and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court met with no success and, therefore, present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Krishan. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even the events subsequent to passing of decree for pre -emption have to be taken note of by the appellate Court while hearing appeal and if during the pendency of the appeal, partition between the co -sharers has been effected, plaintiff -pre -emptor would cease to have his preferential right to get the sale in his favour, as, he has to maintain the right of pre -emption at the time of sale as also at the time when he files the suit and when the decree is passed. Since the appeal is in continuation of suit only, the partition, even though effected during the pendency of the appeal, would knock out the case of pre -emptor, contends the learned counsel. For his afore stated contention, learned counsel relies upon a very recent Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Chanchal Singh and Anr. . In fact, the matter came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on a reference made by learned Single Judge of this Court after noting seeming conflict of decisions rendered by this Court in Santokh Singh v. Lajja Ram and Anr., 1986 PLR 496 and Lakhwinder Singh and Ors. v. Balvinder Singh and Ors., 1987 PLR 505. After thoroughly discussing the matter and relying upon a number of judgments, the Division Bench held as follows : -

(3.) THAT apart, right of a pre -emptor to ask substitution of his name with that of the vendee has come to an end by way of the Punjab Pre -emption (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1995 introduced through notification dated May 7, 1995 and which received the assent of the Governor of Haryana on May 4, 1995. By virtue of the amendment, referred to above, right of pre -emption now vests only in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof.