BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. versus CHET RAM

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 16-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

640 
BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
v. 
CHETRAM 
October 16, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
/'unjan Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), s. 15 (I) (a) Fourthly-Sale of 
. _fand--l'enant dispossessed and tenancy terminated-Suit for possession by 
pre-e 111 ption--M aintaina bility. 
A 
B 
The appellant; purchased certain lands and filed a suit against the 
C 
respondent, who was 
the tenant-at-will under the vendor, for ejectment 
'Ihc suit '\VJs decreed. 
The appellants entered into possess.ion and the 
tenancy of the respondent was determined. 
Thereafter, the respondent 
filed a suit for possession by pre-emption under s. 15(1) (a) Fourthly of 
the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 which provides that a right of pre-
emption vests in a tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the 
land or property sold or a part thereof. It was contended that it was 
sufficient if the plaintiff proved that he was a tenant under !be. vendor 
D 
on the date· of the sale. 
HELD : The well-established principle being that a pre-emptor must 
maintain his qualification to pre-empt upto the date of the de.cree for 
possession by pre-emption, the Legislature cannot be attributed the inten-
tion of giving the right to a tenant who has been dispossessed and whose 
ten~ncy has been determined either before or during the pendency of his 
suit, claiming the right of pre-emption. 
This is particularly so as the 
·statutory right of pre-emption is one which attaches to the land and is 
E 
not a mere personal right. [641 H; 642 A-B, F-G; 643 A-BJ 
Hans Nath v. Ragho Prasad Singh, 59 I.A. 138, 1'hakur Madho Singh 
v. Lt. James R. R. Skinner, I.L.R. [1942] 23 Lah. 155, Faiz Mohammad 
v. Fajar Ali Khan, I.L.R. J,1944] 25 Ladtl 473 and Surjit Singh v . . Gurnam 
Singh, (1964) P.L.R. 1063, referred to. 
R<mji Lal v. State of Punjab, (1966) 68 P.L.R. 345 (F.B.) 1 approved. 
Kashmiri Lal v. Chuhar Ram, (1970) 72 P.L.R. 325 and Sohan Singh 
v. Udlw Ram, (1967) P.L.R. 414, over-ruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 192 of 
1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the j11dgme111t and order dated 
December 15, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 
RS.A. No. 1949 of 1968. 
S. C. Manchanda, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagraj, 
for the appellant. 
Rameshwar Dial, S. K. Bagga, S. D. Sood and S. Bagga, for 
the respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
• 
c 
• 
E 
f 
G 
H 
BHAGWAN DASS v. CHET RAM (Grover J.) 
641 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is_ an appeal by special leave from a judg-
ment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 
In December 1966 Labhu Ram who was the owner of the 
land in dispute sold the same in two lots to Bhagwan Das (de-
ceased) now represented by his legal representatives and others . 
The lands mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the title of the 
plaint in the smt out of which the present appeal has arisen were 
sold-for Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively. The respon-
dent Chet. Ram was a tenant-at-will of the lands covered by the 
sales. Bhagwan Das and other> filed a suit against Chet Ram in 
the revenue court for ejectment under s. 14A (i) read with s. 9 ( 1 1 
of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 which was 
decreed on July 31, 1967. 
On August 31, 1968 Bhagwan Das 
and others entered into possession of the afo:esaid lands after 
evicting Chet Ram by virtue of the decre, 
0'1r eviction obtained 
against him. 
After his eviction Chet Rao the present respondert\ filed a suit 
for possession of the lands which were the subject matter of sale 
by pre-emption under s. lS(l)(a) FOURTHLY of the Punjab Pre-
emption Act, 1913, (Punjab Act I of 1913), hereinafter called the 
'Act',. By th11t provision the right of pre:emption has been de-
clared to vest in the tena!Jt who holds under tenancy of the vendor 
the la.nd or property sold or a pa~t thereof. It was admitted before 
the trial court that the respondent was a tenant before July 31, 
1967 and that before the institution of the pre-emption suit his 
tenancy had been determ,ined. The trial court dismissed the suit. 
On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, in view of certain 
decisions of tbe Punjab High Court, allowed the appeal and de-. 
creed the suit. 
The judgment was upheld in second appeal by 
the High Court. 
The sole question for determination is whether a person who 
has ceased to hold the land sold as a tenant can succeed in a suit 
for possession by pre-emption under s. lS(l)(a) FOURTHLY. 
The Pun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.