RESHMU AND ORS. versus RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 16-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RESHMU AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMED AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 20 Rule 14( 1)-Pre- emption---Land 
in question sold by joint owner--Pre-emption suit filed by original plaintiff 
who was the son of other joint owner-Suit decreed in favour of original 
plaintiff and pre-emption amount deposited-Another suit filed by original C 
plaintiff for declaration of ownership against the appellants who are successors 
of the vendee:.--Trial Court declared ownership of the original plaintiff al-
though possession was with appellants-First Appellate Court granted owner-
ship to the appellants on basis of adverse possession-High Court reversed 
the judgment as plea of adverse possession had never been taken before-On D 
appeal, Held, the title of decree holder accrues from date of payment of pre-
emption amount as per decree-No actual possession required to be obtained 
or delivered-Dismissal of execution petition inconsequential since original 
plaintiff was i11 joint possession. 
The original joint owner of the land in question had sold it to three E 
persons. The original plaintiff was the son of the other joint owner. He 
brought a suit for pre-emption of the sale against the vendees which was 
decreed in his favour and the pre· emption amount was also deposited. 
Another suit was filed by the original plaintiff against the appellants, who 
are successors in the interest of the vendees, for a declaration 11f his 
ownership and a permanent injunction restraining them from the enjoy· 
ment of the said property. Trial court held the plaintiff to the owner 
although possession was with the appellants. The judgment and decree was 
reversed in first appeal and ownership was presumed in favour of the 
appellants by adverse possession. 
The High Court in second appeal noticed that no plea of adverse 
possession had ever been taken before, and reversed the judgment of the 
First Appellate Court. Hence this appeal. 
F 
G 
The appellants contended before this court that pre· emption decree 
cannot be relied upon as possession had not been delivered to die plaintiff H 
893 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20C0] 1 S.C.R. 
A in terms of that decree and that execution petition filed by the plaintiff had 
also been dismissed. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. A plain reading of Order 20 Rule 14(1) CPC shows that 
B the title of the decree holder accrues from the date of the payment required 
to be made under a pre-emption decree. [896-F] 
2. In view of the deposit by the original plaintiff of the pre-emption 
amount In terms of the pre-emption decree, the dismissal of the execution 
petition was inconsequential since the plaintiff was in joint possession of 
C the land, which was part of joint khata. [896-G] 
3. The subject matter of the pre-emption suit, was not any particular 
part of the land of the joint khata but the undivided share of the original 
joint owner therdn. This share had never been separated byway of partition 
before sale. The plaintiff was already in possession of the land along with 
D other co-sharen. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no actual pos· 
session was required to be obtained or delivered. [895-H; 896-A] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5110 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8. 1.97 of the Himachal Pradesh 
High Court in R.S.A. No. 372 of 1988 
K.G. Bhagat, Dcbasis ~fara and Kamal Baid for the Appellants. 
A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma and ~fa. Rekha Palli for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABHARWAL, J. Respondents I to 4 arc the legal heirs of the 
original plaintiff Suram Singh. The father of Suram Singh named Nand Lal 
was joint owner of the land in question along with one Bassia. In the year 
G 1940, Bassia sold the land to Harnam Singh, Munshi Ram and Tilak Chand. 
In July 1941, S uram Singh brought a suit for pre-emption of this sale against 
Harnam Singh, Munshi and Tilak Chand. The said suit was decreed on 31st 
January, 1942, and directed payment of pre-emption amount on or before 
1st April, 1942. The said amount wa~ depusitt:d by Suram Singh in Court 
H as pt:r the· terms of tht: decree. 
RESHMU v. RNINDER SINGH (SABHARWAL,J.] 
895 
The suit out of which tht: present appeal has arisen was filed by A 
Suram Singh against successors in the interest of Harnam Singh, Munshi 
1 and Tilak Chand inter alia seeking a decree of declaration that he is 

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