LexLABH SINGH & ORS. versus BACHAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 639 ~ ..o;· LASH SINGH & ORS. A v. BACHAN SINGH (C.A. No. 342 of 2008) JANUARY 11, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) .... Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 - s. 15 (1) and (2) - Agricultural land - Sale of - Suit by plaintiff claiming right to pre-emption as co-sharer being fourth degree collateral of c vendor - Decreed - First appellate court set aside the decree holding that since property jointly owned by vendor with his sister, sale to extent of share of female vendor was no( pre" emptible, thus, vendee's status improved as that of co-sharer - However, High Court restored the decree of trial court - On D appeal held: In view of *Atam Prakash and **Mahant Braham Dass case, order of High Court set aside and that of first appellate court upheld. One 'SR' sold half of the land in dispute for an ostensible consideration. The plaintiff filed a suit for pre- E emption claiming superior right of pre-emption over the suit land as a co-sharer with 'SR'-vendor uls 15(1) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 claiming that he held the suit land jointly with 'SR' as the fourth degree collateral of -t 'SR' The defendant-appellant contended that 'SR' and his F JI sister .'A' jointly owned half of the land and jointly executed the sale deed; and that the sale being by a female was governed by s. 15(2) of the Act. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff being a co-sharer had superior right of pre-emption. The defendant filed an G appeal. The first appellate court held that the vendee had -"'! improved his status as that of a co-sharer since the sale to the extent of share of 'A' was not pre-emptible and thus, the plaintiff did not have superior right of pre-emption, and set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the trial H 639 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R. A court. The respondent filed a second appeal. The High Court set aside the order of the first appellate court and restored that of the trial court. Hence the present appeal. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In view of the decisions in* A tam Prakash case and **Mahant Braham Dass case by this Court, the judgment of the High Court restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside. The first Appellate c Court had taken the correct view. Certain amounts have been deposited by the respondent-plaintiff with the trial court. The said Court would permit withdrawal of the amount by the respondent on a proper application being made. [Para 15] [644-G; 645-A] D *Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1986 (2) SCC 249; **Mahant Braham Dass Singh Pannu v. Om Prakash Chaudhary 1996 (7) SCC 97 - relied on. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 342 E of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1352 of 2000. Pardeep Gupta, K. K. Mohan, Suresh Bharati and Vijay F Laxmi Lithanthem for the Appellants. G Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29.10.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge oo' the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Second Appeal filed under Section H 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). The t LABH SINGH & ORS. v. BACHAN SINGH 641 [PASAYAT, J.] ,. A Second Appeal before the High Court was filed by the plaintiff A who had succeeded before the Trial Court; but the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed. In the Second Appeal, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was restored and those of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption. B 4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: ~~'It The plaintiff filed suit for possession alleging therein that the vendor Singh Ram is jointly recorded as owner of half share of land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Fatehbad Tehsil c Naraingarh. The plaintiff and vendor Singh Ram are related to each other as the plaintiff is fourth degree collateral of the vendor. Singh Ram had sold half of 24 kanal of land by way of registered sale deed dated 2.6.1979 registered on 29.6.1979 for an ostensible consideration of Rs.30,000/- D The plaintiff inter alia claimed superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer with the vendor in the land in disp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.