MANSU versus SHADI RAM

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 20-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
MANSU 
A 
v. 
SHADIRAM 
FEBRUARY 20, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to State of Haryana. 
S.15(1) & (2')--Appellant staking his claim to the suit property in 
exercise of his right of pre-emption based on tenancy-Respondent resisting 
on the ground that vendors being both males and fem ales, share off em ale C 
vendors not pre-emptable and he as a successor-in-interest became a co-
sharer and had a supe1ior 1ight over the plaintiff-Appellant-Claim of appel-
lant upheld by the T1ial Cowt and First Appellate Cowt-High Cowt allowing 
the appeal and dismissing the suit-Held, appellant has right to maintain his 
possession under the existing state of law in exercise of his 1ight of pre-emption D 
as a tenant. 
Attam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 249 and 
Karan Singh & Others v. Bhagwan Singh (D) by Lrs. and Others, (1996) 1 
Scale 594, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3809 qf 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.83 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.R.S.A. No. 1860 of 1974. 
S.M. Ashri, Dr. Meera Aggarwal, R.C. Misra, for Aggarwal and 
Mishra & Co. for the Appellant. 
Harbans Lal, A.S. Chahal and Ms. S. Janani for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The sole appellate having died, application for substitution is al-
lowed. 
E 
F 
G 
The appellant before us (now represented by his heirs and legal 
representatives) is the Plaintiff-pre-emptor. The respondent on the other H 
909 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
side is the vendee. The suit property was sold by a set of co-sharers, males 
as well as females. The appellant staked claim to the suit property in 
exercise of his right of pre-emption based on tenancy. The respond~nt 
resisted the suit contending that since the vendors were both males and 
females, the share of the female vendors was not pre-emptable in terms of 
B Section 15(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to the State of 
Haryana. And, further if the sale by female vendors was not pre-emptable 
he as a successors-in-interest became a co-sharer in the suit land, and as 
such he had a superior right over the plaintiff under Section 15(1) of the 
aforesaid Act. 
C 
The Trial Court as also the lower appellate court went into oral and 
documentary evidence adduced by the parties in coming to the firm con-
clusion that the appellant being a tenant had a superior right of pre-emp-
tion in preference to the respondent. The High Court allowed the second 
appeal of the vendee-respondent and dismissed the suit of the appellant, 
D on the premise that when part of the sale effected by female vendors was 
not pre-emptable under Section 15(2), then the vendee, as a co-sharer in 
his own right, had a right to pre-empt the sale made by the male vendors 
under section 15(1) of the Act. It is this view of the High Court which has 
been put to challenge before this Court. 
E 
F 
InAttam Prakash v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 249, this 
Court has categorically struck down section 15(2) of the Act as ultra vires 
the Constitution. As referred to earlier, Section _15(2) applies to cases of 
sales made by females. Due to the non obstante clause operating in Section 
15(2), those sales are not pre-emptable under Section 15(1) of the Act. 
When the right of pre-emption under Section 15(2) in no longer available, 
it can now be searched in Section 15(1) in so much as is left alive in Attam 
Prakash's case. Thereunder, in clause 'fourthly', the right of pre-emption 
vests in a co-sharer and then in clause 'fifthly', it vests in the tenant who 
holds under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or 
a part thereof. Uptil the High Court decision, the co-sharer had a superior 
G right of pre-emption over the tenant. In the meantime, however, by 
Haryana Amendment Act 10of1995 which came into force on July 7, 1995, 
the right of pre-emption in favour of the co-sharer has been withdrawn by 
causing necessary amendment in the parent Act. The right of pre-emption 
now survives only in favour of the tenant and not for any other. Thus, the 
H superior claim of the respondent presently stands snatched away from him 
-
--
-/' 
' 
MANSU v. SHAD I RAM 
911 
by statutory amendment. This Court in Karan Singh and Others v. Bhagwan A 
Singh (D) by Lrs. and Others, (1996) 1 Scale 594 has taken the view in this 
context that it would take judici

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