JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS v. SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Case Details
RSA-2091-1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (102) RSA-2091-1991 RESERVED ON 17.12.2024 DATE OF DECISION:- 07.01.2025 JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
deeds are fictitious. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhartu Versus Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 has held that a co-owner is an owner of every inch of the land till the land is partitioned. There is no evidence on the record, even remotely suggesting that the suit land has been partitioned. This KAMAL SHARMA 2025.01.08 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh. amplifies that there was an improvement in the status of the defendant- RSA-2091-1991 -4- vendees before the institution of the pre-emption suit and the appellants- plaintiffs do not have a superior right to pre-empt the sale. 7. The argument of the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that since no specific khasra number has been sold, the defendants cannot be treated as co-sharers, deserves to be rejected. Although, counsel for the appellants has sought to place reliance upon a copy of sale deed dated 13.03.1984 to contend that the plaintiffs have a superior right, but as the documents have neither been pleaded nor produced or exhibited before the Courts below, the same cannot be taken into consideration. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. Amount deposited by the appellants is permitted to withdrawn by them, if not done so far. 9.
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate and Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. 1. In this regular second appeal, appellants-plaintiffs have assailed the correctness of the first appellate Court’s judgment, which is turn has reversed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 2. Pleaded case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that they are co- sharers in the land in dispute with defendant No.2, which was alienated to defendant No.1 by registered sale deed dated 17.11.1986, Ex.P-1, for consideration of Rs.34,625/- vide vasika no. 1448. It has been averred that in order to deprive the plaintiffs of their right to purchase the land, inflated consideration of Rs.54,625/- was mentioned in the sale deed instead of the actual amount. Plaintiffs filed the suit for possession by way of pre- emption. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by KAMAL SHARMA 2025.01.08 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh. taking various objections, including an objection that the plaintiffs have not RSA-2091-1991 -2- deposited the amount of zerepumzum. On merits, it was submitted that the consideration for sale was Rs.54,625/-, which was to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It was denied that the plaintiffs are the co-sharers of the land in dispute with defendant No.2. A plea was taken that the defendant-vendees were also co-sharers in the land as they had purchased some portion vide sale deeds dated 06.11.1986, Ex.D-4 and 26.12.1986, Ex.D-3 and mutations, Ex.D-5 and D-6, respectively, were entered in their name. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Plaintiffs filed a replication reasserting the claim and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. After trial, by judgment dated 15.01.1991, Trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal, preferred by defendants No.1 to 3, the judgment as well as decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs are in second appeal in the above backdrop. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submission, besides examining the requisitioned record of the Trial Court with their able assistance. 4. The right of the plaintiffs to preempt a property has to be examined in the light of the legal position settled in Shyam Sunder and others Versus Ram Kumar and another, (2001) 8 SCC 24, wherein Supreme Court has laid down as under:- “10. An analysis of the aforesaid decisions referred to in first category of decisions, the legal principles that emerge are these:- 1. The pre-emptor must have the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, on the date of filing of the suit and on the date of passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance only. 2. The pre-emptor who claims the right to pre-empt the sale on the date of the sale must prove that such right continued to subsist till the passing of the decree of the first court. If the KAMAL SHARMA 2025.01.08 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh. RSA-2091-1991 -3- claimant loses that right or a vendee improves his right equal or above the right of the claimant before the adjudication of suit, the suit for pre- emption must fail. A pre-emptor who has a right to preempt 3. a sale on the date of institution of the suit and on the date of passing of decree, the loss of such right subsequent to the decree of the first court would not affect his right or maintainability of the suit for preemption. A pre-emptor who after proving his right 4. on the date of sale, on the date of filing the suit and on the date of passing of the decree by the first court, has obtained a decree for preemption by the Court of first instance, such right cannot be taken away by subsequent legislation during pendency of the appeal filed against the decree unless such legislation has retrospective operation.” 5. These principles have been followed and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jhabbar Singh (deceased) through legal heirs and others Versus Jagtar Singh son of Darshan Singh, (2023)14 SCC 199. 6. Defendant-vendees had taken a specific stand that they had purchased some portion in the suit land vide sale deeds dated 06.11.1986 and 26.11.1986, and became co-sharers in the land. They produced the sale deeds as Ex.D-4 and D-3, and also the mutations, Ex.D-5 and D-6, which were sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds. Although, the sale deeds do not specify the khasra number purchased by the defendants, but that is immaterial, as the sale deeds have not been denied by the appellants- plaintiffs in their written statement nor they could establish that the sale
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed off. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 07.01.2025 kamal Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No KAMAL SHARMA 2025.01.08 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh.