PREMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus SURAT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 04-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PREMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. 
v. 
SURAT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 4, 2003 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.) 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913: 
Ss.2 /-A and 28-A-Pre-emption suit--Defence of improvement in status-
C Stranger purchasing I 14th share of one of the co-owners in agricultural land-
Same vendee subsequently purchasing /18th share of another co-owner- Suit 
for pre-emption flied by another co-owner in respect of first sale-Second suit 
for pre-emption flied by the co-owner in respect of subsequent sale-Defence 
of the vendee that before filing of the first suit he had improved his status as 
a co-owner by purchasing the share of the co-owner under second sale-Suits 
D dismissf!d by trial court-First appellate court allowed the appeals of co-
owner and decreed the suits-Appellate decree affirmed by High Court-
Held, acquisition of status for the purpose of s.21-A would mean a status 
which is undisputable and/or not amenable to challenge and not the one in 
controversy or subject matter of challenge before a competent court~.28-A 
E is attracted to a case where plaintiff seeks relief of pre-emption as also to a 
case where improveme.nt of status is pleaded in defence-The/act that by virtue 
of the second sale, the vendee has acquired one-eighth share in the joint 
property would be of no consequence as the plea of improvement of status 
would not be available to him as acquisition of right under the second sale 
is amenable to challenge and is, in/act, the subject matter of the second suit-
F No illegality in judgment of High Court. 
Garib Singh Kishan Singh v. Harnam Singh Kishan, AIR (1972) P. & 
ff. 99, referred to. 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. I 008-
G 1009 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.1993 of the High Court of 
'I 
Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2178 and 2178-A 9f 
1989. 
H 
814 
·' 
)[ 
!'REMA v. SURAT SINGH 
815 
Anip Sachthey, Abhay Kumar and E. Venu Kumar, for the Appellants. A 
PC. Jain, H.M. Singh, Ranbir Yadav, K.P. Singh, C.M. Patel and B.D. 
Sharma, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
These two appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2178 
of 1989 and 2178-A of 1989 passed on August 18, 1993. 
B 
The controversy in these appeals relates to the scope of defence of 
improvement made in the status in a suit seeking enforcement of the right of C 
pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to 
as 'the Act']. 
The appellant was the defendant-vendee in the suit for pre-emption 
filed by the respondent-plaintiff. On 4th September, 1984, the appellant 
purchased one-fourth share in the agricultural lands from one jangli who was D 
a co-owner along with his brothers, Jai Narain and the respondent-plaintiff 
[hereinafter referred to as 'the first sale'). On October 15, 1984, the appellant 
purchased one-eighth share of Jai Narain the said lands [hereinafter referred 
to as 'the second sale'). While so, the respondent filed Suit No. 129 of 1986 
claiming right of pre-emption in respect of the land covered by the first sale E 
in the Court of Sub-Judge, llnd Class, Gurgaon, on Sept.ember 3, 1985 
[hereinafter referred to as 'the first suit'). The respondent brought another 
suit for pre-emption in respect of the land covered by the second sale on 15th 
October. 1985, being Suit No. 124 of 1986 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, 
llnd Class, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as 'the second suit'[. The defence 
of the appellant was that even before the first suit was filed, he had become F 
the co-owner and had, thus, improved his status equal to that of the respondent 
and as such, the suit could not be decreed against him. That submission was 
based on Section 21-A of the Act. The respondent filed an application under 
Section 28-A of the Act seeking stay of the second suit. The application was 
dismissed by the trial court on 3 lst January, 1987. Against that order, he G 
filed a revision petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which 
was also dismissed, on 3rd October, 1988, with the observation that both the 
suits be tried together. 
Having considered the respective pleas of both the parties, the learned 
Trial Judge dismissed the suits on 10th January, 1987. On appeal by the H 
~ . 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'TS 
(2003) I S.C.R. 
A respondent against the judgement and decr

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