MANGE RAM Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Ramti and Khushi Ram sold the land in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 38,000/- vide sale deed dated 15.4.1982 in favour of five brothers, namely, Tulsi Ram and others. Mange Ram sought to pre-empt the sale on the ground that he was tenant as well as co-sharer to the vendors and had superior right of pre-emption. The vendees contested the suit and pleaded that the sale was made for Rs. 23,000/- and disputed the claim of the plaintiff. They also pleaded that the vendees were in possession of the suit land as tenants at the time of execution of the sale deed on payment of Rs. 500/- as annual lease money, and had the protection of section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 1953 Act) as the sale made to tenants is not pre-emptible. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was co-sharer in the sold land except Khasra No. 68 but held that the sale made by Smt. Ramti, who had inherited the same from her husband, was not pre-emptible under section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as the sale made by females was pre-emptible under section 15(2) which had been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court. Since the plaintiff was not found entitled to pre-empt the share of Smt Ramti, it was held that the vendees became co-sharers in the land in dispute by purchasing the share of Smt Ramti which was status equal to that of the pre-emptors and the suit was dismissed. On plaintiff's appeals, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the pre empter was relation of the vendors under firstly and secondly of cause (b) of section 15 (1) of the Act and therefore, in view of Jagdish v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal, 1987 AIR(SC) 68, a co-sharer's suit for pre-emption could not be decreed. This is second appeal by the pre-emptor.

(2.) Firstly, referring to the matter decided by the lower Appellate Court, there was some confusion because of the parentage of the plaintiff and that of one of the vendors. The pre emptor is son of Bishamber son of Ishar son of Salig Ram; whereas Smt. Ramti is widow of Bishamber son of Daulat Ram and the other vendor is Khushi Ram son of Bishamber son of Dault Ram. The learned counsel for the vendee was given opportunity to see if the pre-emptor was related to the vendors. After going through the record and finding all facts from his client, he had to concede that the pre-emptor is not at all related to the vendors. and the confusion crept in before the District Court because of the common name of the father of the pre-emptor and Khushi Ram vendor. The decision to the contrary of the learned District Judge is reversed and it is held that the pre-emptor is a co-sharer but is not in any degree related to the vendors and the decisions in Jagdish's case is not applicable.

(3.) It was then argued on behalf of the vendees that in the registered sale deed there is a recital that the vendees are already in possession as tenants. The learned counsel wants to take benefit of this recital to show that the vendees were already in possession as tenants and by virtue of section 17-A of the 1953 Act the sale is not pre-emptible. Since this matter was hotly contested and was either not properly raised or properly gone into by the Courts below, it deserves a detailed discussion. The true translation of the pleading of the vendees about the tenancy is as follows :-