SOHAN SINGH Vs. UDHO RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 21st of April, 1960, by a registered deed, Ujagar Singh sold the land in suit to Udho Ram and Rattan Chand for Rs. 4,880. This sale led to a suit by Sohan Singh for possession of the land by pre -emption alleging that he, being the tenant of the vendor at the time of sale, had a preferential right to purchase this property as against the vendees. He also alleged that in fact the sale had been effected for Rs. 3,880 and not Rs. 4,880 as mentioned in the sale deed.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the vendees Who denied the allegations made by the Plaintiff and pleaded that he had no right of pre -emption.

(3.) AGAINST this decision, the Plaintiff went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Hoshiarpur. The argument raised by his counsel before the learned Judge was that the wording of the amended Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly showed that it was not possible for the tenant to continue holding the land sold under the tenancy of the vendor after the date of sale. This contention was repelled by the learned Judge by saying "this argument does not, however, cover a case where the tenant has altogether ceased to be a tenant on the land after the sale, be it under the vendor or the vendee. There is no allegation that the Plaintiff has been dispossessed in any high -handed manner and it had been said at the bar by the vendees counsel that the Plaintiff had vacated the land under some private arrangement or settlement." The learned Judge went on to say "the principle of law is well established that the Plaintiff in a pre -emption suit has to show his superior right on three crucial dates, namely, the date of sale, the date of institution of suit and the date of decree. As the Plaintiff could not show his superior right of pre -emption at the date of the institution of the suit, the suit, according to the lower appellate Court, had been rightly thrown out by the trial court. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the more proper way for the trial Judge was to have dismissed the suit rather than reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.