SARUP SINGH Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chanan Singh filed a suit to pre-empt the sale made by Gurbachan Singh on the ground that he was brother and co-sharer of the vendor. Later on he sought amendment to correct his father's name on the plea that he was vendor's brother's son. The amendment was allowed by this Court in revision.

(2.) After amendment, when the case was taken by the trial Court on the basis of curious reasoning, the trial Court did not allow the pre emptor to prove that he was vendor's brother's son because he had not sought amendment in the original pleadings to change pleading from brother to vendor's brother's son. It came to the conclusion that on the evidence on the record, he was not proved to be the brother of the vendor. However, he was proved to be co-sharer and the suit was decreed, as a co-sharer. The findings record by the trial Court were upheld by the lower appellate Court. This is second appeal by one of the vendees.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the vendees that in the original plaint the pre emptor had sought pre-emption on the ground of being brother of the vendor and co-sharer but by way of amendment he had corrected his parentage so as to show that he was vendor's brother's son, and the two Courts below were in error in taking too technical view of the matter in not deciding the case on the basis of the amended pleadings, and that they should have come to the conclusion that the pre-emptor was vendor's brother's son. In any event, it is urged, whether the pre-emptor is treated as vendor's brother, or vendor's brother's son, as was sought to be shown by amendment, the added ground is that of co-sharer, and in view of the latest judgment of the highest Court of land in Jagdish v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal, 1987 AIR(SC) 68, the pre-emptor's case would fall under Section 15(1)(b) clauses 'Firstly' or 'Secondly', and under none of the aforesaid two clauses he could be allowed to pre-empt as a co-sharer.