SUNEHRA Vs. BARHAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below by which the claim of the plaintiff-respondents for possession by pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers, has been up-held.

(2.) MR . Sarin, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the provisions of Punjab Pre-emption (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1995 (Haryana Act No. 10 of 1995), a co-sharer's right to pre-empt a sale does not survive. Mr. R. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submits that in view of the plain language of the provision, it is clear that it is prospective and does not apply to cases wherein a decree for possession by pre-emption was passed by the trial court prior to July 7, 1995 when the provisions of Haryana Act No. 10 of 1995 had came into force.

(3.) FACED with this situation, Mr. Mittal submits that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not considered the earlier decisions in Bhagwan Dass (dead) through his L. R. and Ors. v. Chet Ram, AIR 1971 SC 369, The State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal and Ors. , AIR 1971 SC 1228 and Rikhi Ram and Anr v. Ram Kumar and Ors. , AIR 1975 SC 1869.