JAGDISH & ORS. versus NATHI MAL KEJRIWAL & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 24-10-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGDISH & ORS. 
v. 
NA THI MAL KEJRIW AL & ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1986 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTI, JJ.] 
c 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, s.15(l)(b) clause 'Fourthly'-
'Other Co-sharers'-lnterpretation of-Land belonging to joint 
family-Sold-Non-alienating co-sharers-Whether entitled to claim 
right of pre-emption. 
Respondent Nos. S to 7 were joint owners of the suit land. They 
sold it to respondent nos. I to 4 on 25.10.71. The petitioners, som and 
nephews of the vendors, instituted a suit before the sub-lodge, Palwal . 
for ~on 
of the snit land on payment of the sale comideratlon on 
the ground that they were entitled to the right of the pre-emption in 
D respect of the snit land either under clause "First", or Secondly, of 
s.JS(l)(a) or under clause 'First' or 'Secondly' ofs.lS(l)(b) ofthe Pun-
jab Pre-emption Act 1913 as in force in the State of Haryana. The 
Sub-Judge decreed the snit for possession. The appeal of Respondent 
Nos. I to 4 against the aforesaid order having been dismissed by the 
District Judge, Ibey filed a second appeal before the High Court. 
E 
During the pendency of the second appeal, the Supreme Court 
delivered its judgment in Alam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors., 
[1986] 2 SCC 249. The High Court allowed the second appeal and 
dismissed the snit since the provisions under which the petitioners 
claimed the right· of pre-emption had been declared void by the 
F Supreme Court in Atam Prakash's case. 
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the petition· 
ers in the special leave petition contended that since the suit land be-
longed to the joint family and it had not been sold by all the sharers, 
they were entitled to claim the right of pre-emption under clause 
G 
'Fourthly' of s.IS(l)(b) of the Act because they happened to be the 
non-alienating co-sharers. 
Dismis..uig the petition, 
HELD: The expression 'other co-sharers' in clause 'Fourthly' of 
H 
s.15( l)(b) of the Act refers to only those co-sharers who do not fllll 
68 
.. _._ 
\ 
--
,L 
-
JAGDISH v. NATH! MAL KEJRIWAL [VENKATARAMIAH, J.J 
69 
under clause 'First' or 'Secondly' or 'Thirdly' ofs.IS(l)(b) of the Act .. A 
Since the petitioners admittedly fall either under clause 'First' or under 
clause 'Secondly' of s.IS(l)(b) of the Act, they are clearly out<ide the 
scope of clause 'Fourthly'. Therefore, the petitioners canoot claim the 
right of pre-emption under clause 'Fourthly'. [71D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
B 
(Civil) No. 11015 of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.86 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1504 
of 1977. 
R.K. Jain, D.S. Mehra and Ms. AbhaJain for the Petitioners. 
K.K. Jain, P. Dayal, Shiv Kumar and A.O. Sanger for Respon-
dent No. l 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
VENKATARAMIAH, J. Respondents 5 to 7-Aji Ram, Tota 
Ram and Hari Chand are sons of one Kesaria. The suit land belonged 
jointly to Respondents 5 to 7. They sold it to Respondents l to 4-
Nathi Mal Kejriwal, Radhey Shayam Kejriwal, Smt. Daropdi Devi 
and Nagar Mal Kejriwal, who were strangers to their fam~y for a 
E 
consideration of Rs.33,000 under a sale deed registered on 25.10. 1971.. 
The petitioners, who claimed themselves to be the sons and nephews 
of the vendors, instituted a suit in Civil Suit No. 466 of 1972 on the file 
of the Sub-Judge, !st Class, Palwal for possession of the suit land on 
payment of Rs.33,000 Claiming that they were entitled to the right of 
pre-emption in respect of the suit land either under clause 'First' or F 
'Secondly' of Section 15(i)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as in force in the State of Haryana 
or under clause 'First' or 'Secondly' of Section 15( i)(b) of the Act. The 
learned Sub-Judge upheld the plea of the petitioners and decreed the 
suit for possession of the suit land against Respondents 1 to 4 who had 
purchased the suit land as well as against Respondents 5 to 7 who had G 
sold it subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs.36,642. which 
included the consideration of Rs.33,000 and interest thereon at 8 per 
cent per annum. The learned Sub-Judge further directed the petition-
ers to deposit the sum of Rs.36,642 minus the zare punjam amount on 
or before 3rd May, 197.6 and that on their failure to deposit the said H 
amount, he directed that the suit should be deemed to have been 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1987] 1 S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.