SANWAT SINGH versus ZAIL SINGLF AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SANWAT SINGH 
A 
v. 
ZAIL SINGlf AND ORS. 
'•' 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Pu11jab Security of La11d Tenures Act, 1953 : Section 9. 
Pre-emptio11-D, owner of prope~rop~rty sold to J-Z obtained a 
decree of pre-emption and interfered with possession of appellant who was in c 
possession of property-Suit filed by appellant for perpetual injunction 
restraining Z from i11terfering with possessiorr-Trial Court found that appel-
Zant was in possessio11 prior to 1957 and granted decree accordingly-Appel-
late Court reversed the decree-Decree Affinned by High Court in second 
appeal-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held a tena11t in possession of the D 
demised property by the vendor is not liable to ejectment except in accordance 
with the provisions contained in Section 9-lt is 11ot the case of appella11t that 
he has contravened any of the provisions and is liable to be ejected-Even 
otherwise, if his case is that he has contravened any of the provisions, unless 
appropriate action in accordance with law is taken and order passed, he is 
entitled to resist unlawful interference with the possessiorr-Thereby, the E 
decree gra11ted by the appellate Court a11d co11finned by the High Court is not 
correct in law . 
... -
Hukam Singh v. Hakumat Raj, (1967) PLR 743, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 922 of F 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.86 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 848 of 1977. 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
G 
-.)_ 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab 
& Haryana High Court, made on 16.11.1986 in RSA No. 848/77. 
H 
275 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l996) sup/ 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The admitted and proved facts are that one Dalip Kaur daughter of 
Inder Singh was the owner· of the property in question. She sold the 
property oh April 14, 1967 to Smt~Jeth Kanwar. Zail Singh had filed a suit 
for pre-emption of the sale and obtained a decree of pre-emption on 
October 9, 1969. Thereafter, he sought to interfere with the possession of 
B the appellant who was admittedly in possession of the said property. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the suit in question for perpetual injunction 
restraining Zail Singh and any other person from interfering with his 
possession. He claimed to be a tenant prior to 1957 from Dalip Kaur and 
was, therefore, entitled to remain in possession uninterruptedly as such. 
The trial Court found that he was in possession as a tenant prior to 1957 
C and accordingly granted the decree of perpetual injunction against the 
respondents. On appeal, the appellant Court reversed the decree holding 
that the appellant had come into possession of the suit property some time 
in 1968 after the sale was made in favour of Jeet Kanwar. Since Dalip Kaur 
had pre-empted the property sold by her mother, the tenancy right created 
D by Jeet Singh in favour of the appellant did not bind Jeet Singh-defendant. 
Having obtained the pre- emption, he had right to take physical possession 
of the property dispossessing the appellant. As a consequence, the injunc-
tion was not correct in law. That was affirmed by the High Court in the 
second appeal following the ratio of the judgment of th:e Full Bench of the 
High Court in Hukam Singh v. Hakumat Rai, (1967) PLR 743. 
E 
Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 
contends that even accepting the finding of the appellate Court, without 
conceding that he was not a tenant prior to 1957, the findings recorded by 
the appellate Court are unsustainable in law and the application of the 
F judgment of the Full Bench to the facts in this case is not warranted. 
G 
H 
Therefore, the decree of the trial Court is correct in law. In support 
thereof, he relied upon proposition Nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) laid in the 
judgment of the Full Bench which read as under : 
(i) The title of a pre-emptor in respect of the pre- empted property 
accrues from the date on which payment of the purchase money 
and costs (if any) is made by him in accordance with the provisions 
of Order XX, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 
(ii) On such title accruing to him the pre-emptor is entitled to 
deli".ery of possession of the property in question from the vendee 
-..(_ 
SANWATSINGHv. ZAILSINGH 
m 
including any person who has happened to possess the property A 
through the vendee after the original sale; 
(iv) a t

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