JAI RAM Vs. LACHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant-vendee's appeal from an appellate decree of reversal dated the 20th January, 1958, of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, by which plaintiff's suit for possession by pre-emption had been decreed. Bhagwan Das sold agricultural land situated in village Nuh bearing Khasra Nos. 1252, 1264 and 1335 for Rs. 1,656/- to Jai Ram on 13th June, 1955. Lachhmi Narain claiming to be a collateral of the vendor maintained the present suit for possession by way of pre-emption. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that Lachhmi Narain had not been proved to be a collateral of the vendor. The plaintiff-pre-emptor went up in appeal against the decree of the trial Court. Senior Subordinate Judge on appeal while finding that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his relationship with the vendor set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

(2.) In this further appeal, the first question that had been agitated on behalf of the vendee appellant is that the plaintiff's suit ought to have failed because he had not been proved to be a collateral of the vendor. The second point raised was that during the pendency of this appeal, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958 (Punjab Ordinance No. 6 of 1958) having come into force, the sale in favour of the tenant was rendered exempt from being pre-empted. It was claimed that the vendee appellant was a tenant of the land in suit and therefore the sale in his favour was immune from attack in a suit for possession by pre-emption.

(3.) Dealing with the second point first, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that vendee's tenancy having been pleaded in the written statement and there being no denial in that respect by the pre-emptor stood established ipso facto. That apart, Exhibit P.16, a copy of Jamabandi was stated to show unmistakably that in 1950-51 Jai Ram vendee had been recorded as a tenant in respect of the suit land under Bhagwan Dass the vendor. Exhibit D.1, the receipt, evidencing the agreement of sale relating to this land again was claimed to point out in clearest terms that Jai Ram, the vendee, was a tenant of the suit land on the date of the agreement to sell, e.g., 24th April, 1955. It was thus maintained that apart from the legal consequences that must flow from there being no denial to the tenancy set up in the pleadings the material referred to above was enough to conclude that the vendee was a tenant of the land in suit. It was then urged that if any change in the law takes place while the matter is pending disposal even in appeal, the effect to the rights of the parties in a pre-emption matter should be given according to the amended law, Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958. Support in this behalf was sought from Boota Ram v. Bagga Singh, 1948 AIR(Lah) 103and Surinder Kumar and others v. Gian Chand,1958 SCA 412. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent frankly conceded as respects this aspect. The question for determination is whether there is enough material to come to the conclusion that the vendee was a tenant at the relevant time. On reading Exhibits P.16 and D.1 along with the pleadings, the conclusion is inevitable that vendee was a tenant of the land in suit starting at least from 1950-51 till 24th April, 1955, the date of agreement of sale. Having so found, it would be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958, in order to decide whether the same apply to the facts of the present case. The amended law came into force on 21st July, 1958. Section 17-A reads :-