RANIAN AND OTHERS Vs. BIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On of 10th January, 1956, by a registered deed, Sawai Ram Jagan Nath and Smt. Baikunthi, respondents 7-9, sold land in dispute measuring 19 kanals and 19 marlas situate in Tikka and village Har, tehsil Dera, district Kangra, in favour of Bir Singh and 5 others, respondents 1-6 for Rs. 1,500/-/-. Thereupon, Rania, Mirchu and Dalipu appellants, filed a suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, for possession of the suit land by pre-emption on the ground that they were cultivating the land as tenants since a very long time and the vendors were big landowners and, therefore, the plaintiffs had superior right of pre-emption as compared to the vendees. It is also alleged that the sale had in fact taken place for Rs. 800/- which was also the market value of the said land. The suit was contested by the vendees, who pleaded that the plaintiffs had not got a right of pre-emption and the sale price mentioned in the deed had actually been paid by them and that also represented the market value of the land sold. It was also stated by them that the suit, being for partial pre-emption could not succeed.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the same was not for partial pre-emption, that only Rs. 1,000/- had been paid by the vendees as sale consideration and that was also the market value of the land in question and that though the plaintiffs were cultivating the land in dispute as tenants for more than four years as required by Section 17 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, but the vendors were small landowners and, therefore, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption under this Act. When the matter went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, he held that the vendors were small landowners and therefore, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption. An application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the plaintiffs for producing additional evidence before the learned Additional District Judge, but the same was rejected by him. The appeal having been dismissed, the plaintiffs have come here in second appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Punjab Pre-emption Act was amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960 and now according to the amended Section 15 of the Act, where the sale is of land or property owned jointly and is made by all the co-sharers jointly, the tenants would have a right of pre-emption. That being so, according to the amended Punjab Pre-emption Act, the plaintiffs would have a right of pre-emption, even if the vendors were small landowners. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to Section 17 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, only tenants of big landowners had a right of pre-emption and consequently, according to the learned counsel, tenants of the small landowners could not have any right of pre-emption. For this submission, he relied on the opening part of Section 17, the relevant portion of which runs as under :-