JINDA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. versus RAM PRAKASH AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 10-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JINDA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v 
RAM PRAKASH AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913: Section IS(l)(b). 
Pre-emption suit-Plaintiff co-sharer and tenanf-Claim for pre-emp-
A 
B 
tion held not lost merely because partition had taken place during pendency C 
of appeal. 
In a suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, who was a co-sharer and 
tenant, pre-emption right in respect of agricultural suit lands under 
Section lS(l)(b) fourthly and fifthly to the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913 
was claimed. The Trial Court granted partial relief but the First Appellate D 
Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The High Court held that not-
withstanding the admitted position that plaintiff was a co-sharer at the 
time of sale, at the time of filing of suit for pre-emption and also at the 
time of passing of the decree by the Trial Court, he lost his right of 
pre-emption as there was a partition during the pendency of the appeal. E 
Against the decision of the High Court an appeal was preferred before this 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
F 
HELD : The High Court was not right in holding that the plaintiff 
would lose his right of pre-emption on account of a partition that had 
taken place pending appeal even though his right as a co-sharer to pre-
empt was established in the Trial Court and not challenged by the ven-
dees-defendants. The relevant period to exercise the right of pre-emption G 
is the period when the sale was effected and when the suit was filed 
claiming that right. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to a decree as 
prayed for regarding their right of pre-emption. [62-B-C] 
I 
C..VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9992 of 
• 
1995. 
II 
59 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP..5S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.92 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2342 of 1991. 
AK. Goel and Ms. Sheela Goel for the Appellants. 
C.L. Sahu for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted. 
Heard counsel on both sides. 
c 
This appeal by special leave is direct~d against the judgment and 
order dated 18.3.1992 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No. 
2342 of 1981. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is 
whether a partition effected during the pendency of the appeal affects the 
right of a person who was admittedly a co-sharer at the time of sale of 
D pre-emption. 
Brief facts are the following : 
The appellants are the legal representatives of one Jinda Ram who 
E 
was the plaintiff and filed a suit for pre-emption for agricultural land 
measuring 20 kanals 4 marlas as described in the Plaint Schedule. This 
right of pre-emption was claimed under Section 15(b) fourthly and fifthly 
of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 as a co-sharer and also as a tenant. 
The suit was contested and the trial court framed as many as 10 issues and 
found that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the joint khewat of the suit land 
F 
and has a preferential right of pre-emption. The claim of the plaintiff that 
he was a tenant was also found in favour of the plaintiff. Though the 
plaintiff claimed that the value of the property was only Rs. 6,000 as against 
the sale price shown in the document as Rs. 10,500, the trial court did not 
agree with this contention of the plaintiff. Notwithstanding the finding in 
G favour of the plaintiff with regard to his right of pre-emption, the trial court 
granted a partial relief only on the gro.und that out of 8 vendors, six were 
females and the right of pre-emption was available to the plaintiff only to 
_the extent of 2 male vendors shares and on that finding granted a decree 
in favour of the plaintiff. 
H 
Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court in not granting full relief, 
JINDARAM v. RAMPRAKASH[VENKATASWAMY,J.] 
61 
the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, A 
Karna! reversed the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff was not 
entitled to the right of pre-emption so far as the shares of female vendors 
were concerned. However, the lower appellate court dismissed the suit 
taking away even the partial relief granted by the trial court by holding that 
vendees- defendants after the purchase of the suit land became co-sharers B 
and as such there could be no right of pre-emption against them. Conse-
quently the first appellate court while d

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