SURESH KUMAR Vs. CHANCHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question referred to the Division Bench for decision is, whether the events subsequent to the passing of the decree for pre -emption by the trial Court, can be taken note of by the appellant Authority while hearing the appeal. The said question has arisen in a suit for preemption under the following admitted facts:

(2.) THE plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents' by way of pre -emption, claimed a superior right to pre -empt the sale, on the ground of his being co -sharer in the land sold to the vendee -defendant, hereinafter referred to as the appellant. Though oral partition was set up by way of defence yet finally it emerged that the mutation of partition was effected during the pendency of the appeal. It was observed that the partition was finally affirmed on 21.4.1990 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) IN Regular Second Appeal learned Single Judge, finding that the observations made in Santokh Singh v. Lajja Ram, 1986 2 P.L.R. 406, to the effect that the subsequent events cannot be lost sight by the Court while determining the rights of the parties i.e. if the land was partitioned during the pendency of the appeal, the co -sharer lost his right of pre -emption, were doubted in Lakhwinder Singh v. Balvinder Singh , 1987 2 P.L.J. 505, wherein it was observed that pre -emptor has to retain his right of pre -emption on the date of sale, institution of the suit and the decree of the trial Court and not beyond that, referred the matter to a Division Bench for adjudication.