RAM SARUP Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -appellant filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the courts below. Regular Second Appeal was, however, allowed by J.V. Gupta, J. on 20.8.1986 by observing that the plaintiff was a co-sharer and entitled to pre-empt the sale. Special Leave Petition filed by the defendant-vendee was allowed by the Supreme Court and the judgment and decree passed by this Court was set aside. The matter was remanded to this Court to record a firm finding on the question, whether the plaintiff was or was not a co-sharer qua the property in question and thereafter apply law on the subject. The High Court was further permitted to take additional evidence if required in that behalf. It is in this situation, that this appeal has come up for final disposal before me.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is now not necessary to go into the controversy raised in the appeal, namely, whether the appellant herein is or is not a co-sharer in the land in dispute. Even if it is held that the appellant is a co-sharer in the land in dispute, his suit and consequently his appeal cannot be allowed in view of the amendment made in Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act by Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 which has come into effect from 7.5.1995. The amending Act has substituted Section 15 of the Principal Act whereunder the right of pre-emption is vested now only in a tenant who holds the land under tenancy of the vendor. In view of amendment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, suit of the plaintiff-appellant cannot be decreed for possession by way of pre-emption as such a suit is now not maintainable at the behest of a co- sharer. The Apex Court in Karam Singh and others v. Bhagwan Singh (Dead) by L.Rs and others, Judgments Today 1996(1) S.C. 618, has held as under :-