NATHURAM Vs. PATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three appeals arise in pre-emption suits. The principal point for determination in the first two appeals is as to the extent to which the provisions of the Alwar State Pre-emption Act (Act No. VII of 1946) hereinafter called the Alwar Act, are void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution on the ground that they infringe the rights of a citizen to acquire, hold and dispose of property as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. In the third appeal, the question relates to the extent to which the custom of pre-emption was void under Article 131. The determination of these points will require the examination of the correctness of the authorities of this Court in Panch Gujar Gaur Brahmans v. Amarsingh, ILR (1954) 4 Raj 84: (AIR 1954 Raj 100) (FB) and Shanker Lal v. Poonam Chand, ILR (1954) 4 Raj 310: (AIR 1954 Raj 231), and the other cases following these two authorities. These appeals came up for decision before Single Judges of this Court and in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Audh Rehari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria, AIR 1954 SC 417, these cases had been referred to the larger Benches and this Special Bench has been constituted to hear all these appeals. We propose to dispose of these appeals by one common judgment as the principal points in all these appeals have a close bearing on one another and call for interpretation of Articles 13 and 19 of the Constitution.

(2.) In Civil Second Appeal No. 7 of 1954, the plaintiffs Patram and Hetoo instituted a suit on 28-7-1945 in the Court of the Nizamat, Kishengarh (Alwar) for declaration that the sale of 14 pilots of land situated in village Harsoli (Dist. Alwar) by Harlal (Defendant No. 1) to Nathuram (Defendant No. 2) for Rs. 2,500/- by the sale-deed dated 18-8-1943 was void and illegal as it was made in contravention of Section 129 of the Alwar State Land Revenue Code, 1925. The plaint was subsequently amended and the suit was converted into a suit for pre-emption. The pre-emptors based their claim on the grounds that they were the collaterals of the vendors and also the owners of the patti in which the plots were .situated, and, as such under Section 15 of the Alwar Act, they had a right of pre-emption as the vendee was merely a stranger. The suit was contested by the vendee and it was decreed by the trial court on 25-8-1952. On appeal by the vendee it was remanded for fresh decision by the District Judge, Alwar, but the suit was again decreed by the trial Judge on 23-1-1953. Again an appeal was preferred by the vendee to the District Judge, Alwar, but the appeal was dismissed on 21-12-1953. The vendee has filed Appeal No. 7 of 1954 to this Court.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that Section 15 of the Alwar Act had become void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution on the date when the suit was decreed by the trial court i. e. on 23-1-1953 as the provisions of Section 15 infringed the fundamental right of the vendor to dispose of the plots of land in dispute and the right of the vendees to acquire and hold them, and, as such, on the date of the decree the pre-emptors had lost their right of pre-emption and the suit of the pre-emptors should be dismissed following the authority of this Court in ILR (1954) 4 Raj 310: (AIR 1954 Rai 231).