LexKARAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus BHAGWAN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.R. AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
KARAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
v.
BHAGWAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC.
JANUARY 24, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AD G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended by Haryana Amendment
Act JO of 1995):
C
S.15--Right of pre-emption-Claimant selling some of the a1?7icultural
lands from undivided joint family, but in specie, to strangers-Strangers
further selling the lands-Suit for pre-emption by claimant against purchaser
of further sale-Held claimant having sold lands to strangers could not validly
lay the suit for pre-emption---Cowt would take notice of amendment in law
dwing pendency of appeal and would apply relevant provision of law prevai/-
D ing on date of jud1?7nenl--{}nder the amended law only a tenant whose vendor
sold land to a third pa1ty can avail the right of pre-emption.
Evidence Act, 1872 :
E
S.115--Estoppel-Held, is applicable to cases of pre-emption--
Claimant having sold the land to strangers cannot lay suit for pre-emption
against purchaser of the fwther sale.
The respondent, an agriculturist in the State of Haryana, sold some
agricultural lands from undivided joint family properties, but in specie,
F
to strangers who were residents qf a different village. The vendees further
sold some of the lands purchased from the respondent to the appellant in
1982. The respondent filed a suit for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-
emption Act, 1913 on the ground that being a co-owner he was entitled to
pre-emption of the land purchased by the appellant. The trial court
G dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed the suit and the High
Court, in second appeal, upheld the decree.
In appeal before this Court, it was contended for the appellant that
the respondent himself having sold the land to strangers from whom the
appellant purchased, could not exercise the right of pre-emption under
H s.15 of the Act. It was alternatively contended that with the amendment of
924
•
)
KARAN SINGHv. BHAGWAN SINGH
s.15 of the Act by Haryana Act 10 of 1985 w.e.f. 7 .5.1995, vesting the right A
of pre-emption only in a tenant, the respondent had no right of pre-emp-
tion. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Amendment
Act came into force after the suit had been decreed and as such this court
could confirm the decree validly passed.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Cases of pre-emption are no exception to the rule of
estoppel to be found in s.115 of the Evidence Act. The respondent having
sold the lands which were in specie from the co-parcenary property to
strangers, could not validly lay the suit for pre-emption and plead in-
validity of the title of his vendees selling the same lands to another
stranger on the ground that the title was invalid due to pre-emption right
under the Act. It may be that the other co-owners might have a right since
they may seem to object to the strangers coming into the co-parcenary
estate jointly held by all the co-parceners or co-owners. [927-E-F]
2. The right to claim pre-emption must be available at all the stages
i.e. the date of sale, the date of suit and the date on which the decree is
passed including the final stage to affirm the decree. When the appeal is
pending in this Court, it is a continuation of the original proceedings and
B
c
D
the entire issue is at large. This Court would take judicial notice of the E
change in law and apply relevant provisions of law prevailing on the date of
the order or judgment and mould the relief on the basis of the rights altered
under the amended law. In view of the facts that Haryana Amendment Act,
10of1995 came into force w.e.f. July 7, 1995 the only person entitled under
the amended law, to avail the right of pre-emption, is the tenant whose F
vendor had sold the whole or a part thereof to the third parties. Thus as on
date, the respondent has no right to claim pre-emption under the Act, as
amended under the Amendment Act, 1995. [927-G-H; 928-B; C-D)
Amarjeet Kaur v. Pritam Singh, AIR (1974) 2068, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2308 of
1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.86 of the Punjab &
G
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2671 of 1986.
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
S.K. Bagga, Ms. Monika Bhanot, Ms. S. Bagga and S. Bagga for the
Appellants.
Ashok Sen, Manish Kr. Chaudhary and S.K. Verma for the Respon-
dents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
K. RAMASWAMY, J. LExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.