RAM CHAND versus RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 05-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAM CHAND 
v. 
RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 5, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Pre-emption Laws : 
C 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913-Clause Fourt/Uy in S.15(1)(a) asap-
plicable to Haryana-Agricultural tenant inducted by usufructuary 
mortgagee-Whether has a right of pre-emptiolt-f'art of the land-Whether 
such tenant could pre-empt the entire sale-Held : Yes. 
Certain lands belonging to MC stoods tenanted even prior to 1946. 
D In 1951, MC died and his estate was mutated in favour of bis widow and 
two sons, one of whom was MS in whose share the tenanted land fell. He 
mortgaged the lands in 1951 and mutation was sanctioned and recorded 
in the revenue records. However, the tenancy was not affected. 
E 
F 
G 
At the time of crop inspection of khariff 1953, the father of the 
appellants was found to be the tenant of the mortgaged as also non-
mortgaged land of MS. After the death of their father, the appellants were 
substituted as tenants by inheritance. Prior to his death, the appellants' 
father was shown as a tenant sometimes under the mortgagor and some-
times under the mortgagee. 
· 
In 1966, the mortgagor remortgaged the land with possession to the 
same mortgagee, and redeemed the earlier mortgage. Mutation for the 
subsequent mortgage was sanctioned. However, the appellants remained 
as tenants unaffected by the said transfers. 
In 1968, the mortgagor sold the entire land to the respondents, 
letting the vendees keep the sum due for redeeming the existing mortgage. 
Appellants sought pre-emption of the sale in its entirety. the Trial Court 
granted a decree for pre-emption in respect of the non-mortgaged land on 
payment of the proportionate amount and dismissed the suit with regard 
H to the mortgaged land. On appeal the District Judge, granted a pre· 
222 
.. 
RAM CHAND v. RANDHIR SINGH 
223 
emption decree to the appellants and dismissed the cross appeal filed by A 
the respondents. In second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of 
the Trial Court. Hence this appeal. 
In this appeal two questions were raised viz. (1) Whether an agricul· 
tural tenant inducted by the usufructuary mortgagee, has a right of pro· 
emption over the sale made by the mortgagor· Vendor; and (ii) Whether B 
an agricultural tenant holding under tenancy of the Vendor a part of the 
sold land is entitled to pre· empt the entire sale. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1. An agricultural tenant inducted in terms of Section 76(a) 
of the Transfer of Property Act, by the usufructuary mortgage, bas a right 
of pre-emption over the sale made by the mortgagor-vendor. [228-H) 
Prahbu v. Ramdeo and Ors., AIR (1966) S.C. 1721, followed. 
c 
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, [1864) 2 SCC 244 at page 261, D 
relied on. 
2.1. When a tenanted part of land is involved in the sale, tl1e tenant 
thereof bas a right of pre-emption qua the entire land sold and the vendees 
cannot resist the same. [230·D) 
E 
2.2. Permitting total sale being pre-empted is to prevent fragmenta· 
tion of the erstwhile holdings of the vendor. It does away disputes of 
partitioning or sharing sources ofirrigation and working out rights to take 
water to agricultural fields through the fields of the other which need was 
non-existent under the vendor's management. Likewise for passages of F 
ingress and egress, problems may come up. It obviates the necessity of 
settling other disputes such as apportionment of price of the tenanted area 
on the splitting of the sale, the possible design of Its being inflated to 
frighten the prospective tenant pre-emptor. It is attuned with the principle 
of bar to partial pre· emption. It also avoids the lurking fear of the tenant G 
having to deal with a stranger. Such advantages are just some. Taking the 
language of the tax and its plain advantageous meaning, this Court would 
have such an interpretation to the provision viz. class Fourthly in 
s.15(1) (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 which would entitle a tenant 
to pre-empt a sale of agricultural· land in which bis tenanted land is 
included, on the strength of which he can claim the entire bargain in the H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
exercise of his right of substitution over the vendee. [230·F to HJ 
B 
Ram Sarup v. Munshi and Others, (1963] 3 SCR 858, relied on. 
Ba/want Singh and Ors. v. Mehar Singh and Ors., (1966-68) Supp. PLR 
484 and Uttam Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR (1954) Punjab 55, appr

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