JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. versus JAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS &
ORS.
v.
JAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1497 of 2008)
APRIL 17, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:ss. 4, 15, 19, 20 , 21 – Punjab
Land Revenue Act, 1887 – ss. 118, 121, 123 – Right of pre-emption
– Suit for possession of the suit lands by the respondent against the
appellants-buyer, on the ground that he as a co-sharer in the joint
khewat along with the owner-vendor had a superior right to pre-
empt the sales, and that he was not put to any notice of sale of the
suit lands to the appellants by the owner-vendor – Dismissed by the
trial court on the ground that khewat had remained no more joint
as per the order passed by the Revenue Officer in partition matter
filed during the pendency of the suits – First appeal also dismissed
– However, the High Court allowed the appeals on the ground that
on the date of the passing of the decree, no instrument of partition
was drawn by the Revenue Officer, and thus, the joint status of the
parties had not come to an end and respondent had not lost his
superior right of pre-emption – On appeal, held: Plaint was loosely
drafted, the respondent neither pleaded as to how he was the co-
sharer, nor impleaded the owner of the suit lands, with whom he
claimed to be the co-sharer – Once the decision on the property to
be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue
Officer u/s.118, the joint status of the parties would stand severed
on the date of such decision, subject to the decision in appeal if
any – Consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition
would follow thereafter – Thus, merely because the instrument of
partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was
not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed
– Joint status of the parties came to an end, when the Assistant
Collector passed the order and when the same was confirmed by
the Collector – Trial court and the appellate court rightly held that
the respondent did not possess the status of co-sharer on the date
of decree and that his right of pre-emption had not survived till the
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 564
564
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
date of passing of the decree in the suits – Thus, the order passed
by the High Court quashed and set aside.
Pre-emption: Right of pre-emption – General principles –
Explained.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Ord. VI r.2(1) – Cardinal rule of pleadings – Reiterated.
Ord. I r.10 – Necessary party/ proper party – Non-impleadment of.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In a very loosely drafted plaint, the plaintiff had
neither pleaded as to how he was the cosharer, nor had he
impleaded the said JS, the owner of the suit lands, with whom he
claimed to be the co-sharer, and who had sold the suit lands to
the defendants and Others. It is needless to say that in a suit for
pre-emption, the vendor i.e., the owner of the suit land who had
allegedly not given any notice of sale to the plaintiff as required
to be given under Section 19 of the Pre-emption Act and against
whom the right to pre-empt the sale is claimed would be a proper
party if not a necessary party, for a complete and final adjudication
on the issues involved in the suit. When a right to pre-empt the
sale was claimed by the plaintiff JS as a co-sharer in the lands
along with the owner , alleging that the mandatory provisions
contained in Section 19 i.e., for giving notice to the pre-emptor,
was not complied with by the owner or seller JS, his presence as
the party defendant was desirable along with the other defendants
and Others, to effectively and finally decide the disputes between
the parties. Though, Order I, Rule 9 states that no suit shall be
defeated by reasons of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties,
care must be taken by the court to ensure that all the parties, be
it the plaintiff or the defendant, whose presence is necessary for
complete and final adjudication on the issues involved in the suit,
are before the court. That is the reason why the courts are
empowered to strike out or add parties, at any stage of the
proceedings as per Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. [Paras 12, 13][577-
F-G; 578-A-C]
1.2 Having regard to the absolutely sketchy and loosely
drafted plaint in the instant case, the Court is tempted to
JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS v.
JAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME CO

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