SUKHNANDAN SINGH ETC versus JAMIAT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 18-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

784 
SUKHNANDAN SINGH ETC. 
v. 
JAMIAT SINGH & ORS. 
Februar,y 18, 1971 
[I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
P~e-e111p1i~11--:-Suit for--Co/lusion-;-Suit by son.< of Vendors for pre-
1"fnP!'?n7Pla1n!it1s c.n_d vendors residing and .messing l!Ogether altd expenset; 
.of /1,1ga11on being pwd by vendor.<-!/ mfjicient to e.<tab/ish col/usirm, 
Limitation Act 1908-Article 10--Suit for Pre-emption-Limitdtion-
Purt of the /anti sold i11 tJie hands of tenants-Starting point of /i111itrztion-
":Physicn/ pos.ression", 1neaning. 
In a suit for pre-emption by. the sons of the vendors of cerlain land 
·1hc vendees pleaded collusive nature of' the suit and limitation. The trial 
court found that the vendors and the plaintiffs resided and messed together 
.1Jnd the expenses of the litigation were paid by the vendors. 
From this it 
was concluded that the suit had been filled by the plaintiffs at the instance 
10f and in collusion with the vendors and therefore the plaintiffs were held 
lto be estopped from exercising their right of pre-emption. On th~ question 
of limitation the trial court held that- the vendors1 and not their tenants. 
\vere in possession of the land sold, that possession of the land was deli-
vered to the vendees on the date of the sale and therefore th\! suit wa5 
barred by limitation. The first appellate Court reven;ed the finding of the 
trial court on both the pleas. In regard to the plea of limitation it held 
that a part of the land sold was· in possession of tenants and, therefore, it 
did not admit of physical possession which meant immediate pcr-;oital pos-
session. 
In that view of ~he matter, under Section 10 of the limitation 
_,,er, 1908 the terminus a quo was the date of registration of the "11e deed 
.and therefore within the one year limitation under Article 10. 
T'io High 
•Court affirmed this decision. In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : dismissing the appeal, 
(I) On the facts of the present case there was absolutely no material 
''" which the plaintiffs could be held to have lost their right of pre· 
emption Qn the ground of collusion. Merely because the v•ndors,'the fathers 
of the plaintiffs, were helping their sons to exercise the statutory right con· 
fcrrcd on the sons could not without more, deprive them of the right to 
be substituted for the vendees" in exercise of their right of pre-emption. 
[788 FJ 
(ii) On the finding of the Disltict Judge and the High Court physical 
possession of the whole of the property sold was not taken by the vendees 
·On the date of sale. Therefore the first part of Article 10 of tho Limita-
·tion Act docs not apply. The second part of Article 10 covers ca;cs where 
the subject of the sale,_ which means the whole of the proper!\' <old, does 
not admit of physical possession and that would be so where a part of the 
land in the possession of tenants. The argument that use of the c<Press1on 
";uhject to the sale" suggests that this Article would apply only if the ;intire 
ond not only a part of the land is in the po<Session of the tenant', lS not 
.acceptable. [789 Cl 
" 
Jn the present ease the pr~perties in I.he .~and.s of tenants ha'<, to be 
hold to be incapable of "Physical possession which means per.on«I and 
·immediate possession. 
A. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
... 
' 
SUKHNANDAN v. JAMIAT (Dua. J.) 
785 
A 
B~tul Begam v. Mansur Ali Khan, 
I.L.R. 24 All.17 and 
G/lulum 
Mustaf~ v. Shaltabuddin, 49 P.R. 1908, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN: Civil Appeal No. 1729 of 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
B 
October 17, 1967, of the Punjab and~ Haryana High Court 111 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Regular Second Appeal No. 822 of 1965. 
K. L. Gosain and Nmmit Lal, for the appellants. 
Purushottam Chatterjee and D. D. Sharma, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dua, J. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and decree of a learned single Judge of the P~jab and Haryan:i 
High Court arising out of a i;>re-emption suit only two questions 
were raised by the learned counsel for the appellants who were 
vendees-defendants in the trial court. 
The suit was instituted by 
the three sons of three vendors who were real brothers, and the 
two points canvassed in this Court challenge the decisio.ns of the 
High Court and of the court of the District Judge on issues 6 and 
7. 
Those issues are : 
"6. Is the suit collusive? If so, its . effect. 
7. Is the suit within time?" 
Both these issues were decided by

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