LexSUNDER SINGH AND ORS. versus NARAIN SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F SUNDER SINGH AND ORS. v. NARAIN SINGH AND_ ORS, March 11, 1966 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA- TULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] Patiala and East Punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 5 of 2007 BK, ss. 24 and 25-Land sought to be pre-empted exchanged for other land in consolidation proceed- ings-pre.,emptor's right to follow the land to which his right attaches. The appellants purchased certain lands in the State of Punjab and the respondents filed a suit claim:ng a right of pre-emption . thereon. Under a scheme of consolidation, however, the appellants had before the filing of the suit, been. allotted some other lands in lieu of the land• purchased by them, and they contended that the right of pre-emption claimed by the respondents did not extend to these lands. The trial court and the High Court decreed the respondents' suit holding on the basis of s. 24 of the Pat"ala and East Punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 5 of 2007 BK thi.I it was open to pre-emptor to fOilow the land which had been given to the vendees in consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land which was the subject matter of the sale-deed. The appellants came to this Court by special leave. HELD : Section 24 when it says that the landowner or the tcnint at will shall have the same right in the land allotted to him as he bad in his original holding or tenancy clearly preserves the obligation that 111ay be on the land in the nature of a disab:Jity. The consequence there- fore is that the ordinary law of pre-emption under which the pre-emptor has the. right to follow the land which is the subject-matter of the sale-dttd becomes expanded and the land allotted to the landlord and tenant at will in lieu of the land which may have been subject to pre-emption alllo becomes subject to pre-emption in tho same way as the original hold ing or the tenancy. This inference is not negatived by the special pro· visions of s. 25 in respect of leases and mortgages or other encumbruees. [866 G; 867 D-E] Shrl Audh Behari Singh v. Gaiadhar Jaipur/a, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 70, Blshan Singh v. KhaWt Singh, [1959) S.C.R. 878 relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 822of1963 G Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April, 7, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 32 of 1957. , .. Bishan Narain and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants Nos.1-3 and 5-10. H M. V. Goswami, for appellant No. 4. Bhawani Lal, E .C. Agarwala, Ganpat Rai and P.C. Agarwa/a. for respondent Nos. l(i)-l(vi). 864 SUPREME ·couRT REPORTS fl 966] 3 S.l'R The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J ... This is an appeal by special lea'e fr<>m the decree of the Punjab High Court in a suit brought by the plain- tiffs-respondents for pre-emption. The appellants arc vcndces to the sale which was pre-empted. The facts found by the courts below arc these. The property in suit consisted of agricultural land as well as some haras in village Jalalpur. Punnu Singh and Mansha Singh who were also parties to the suit as defendants sold lhc property in suit on January 15.1955 to the appellanls. There- after consolidation proceedings took place in this village and came to an end before the present suit was filed on January 14, 1956. Of the vcndees, six had no share in the village from before while four already had some share in the village. As a result of the consolidation proceedings. six of the vcndecs who had no share in the viUage from before were allotted other land in place of the land which they had purchased under the sale-deed. The other four vendecs "'ho had some share in the village from before were allotted land in two blocks in lieu of the land they had in the village from before as well as the land which they had purchased by the sale deed in question. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit on the basis of their being collaterals and co-sharers and wanted that they should be given out of the land allotted to the vendces in consolidation proceedings such land as they would be entitled to after pre-emption of the sale in question. The suit was rc,isted by the appellants on a numher of ground,. The main gr\lund of defence with which we arc concerned in the present appeal was whether the suit was maintainable with rcspc't:t to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.