RAM CHAND Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second Appeal filed by Ram Chand plaintiff against the judgment dated 18.11.1969 of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby he accepted the appeal of Lachhman, defendant-respondent, and set aside the decree dated 23.5.1969 passed by the Sub-Judge in his (plaintiff's) favour and dismissed his (plaintiff's) suit for possession by pre-emption of the property in dispute.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the land in suit fully described in the heading of the plaint situated in the area of village Papnawa, Tehsil Kaithal, District Karnal (now District Kurukshetra) belonged to Narain Dass who sold the same for Rs. 3,274/- to Lachhman, respondent, on the basis of a sale-deed dated 8.11.1966. Ram Chand plaintiff who is the son of vendor Narain Dass filed suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in suit on the allegation that he being the son of the vendor had a superior right of pre-emption than the vendee who is a stranger. The defendant contested the suit. It was pleaded that he was a tenant of the suit land under the vendor at the time of sale and, therefore, the sale is not pre-emptible; that he is a member of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the suit for pre-emption did not lie against him. It was further pleaded that the land was the Joint Hindu Family property of the vendor and the plaintiff; that the sale was made by the vendor as the Karta of the said family and, therefore, this suit did not lie. It was denied that the plaintiff-appellant had a superior right of pre-emption. On these pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-

(3.) In the appeal before the District Judge, the decision of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 4 only was contested. The Additional District Judge confirmed the decision of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and held that the plaintiff being the son of the vendor had a superior right of pre-emption. However, on issue No. 4 he held that the defendant-respondent Lachhman was a tenant under the vendor on the date of he sale and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the suit for pre-emption was not maintainable. As a result, the appeal was accepted, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant filed this Regular Second Appeal.