SA No v. Fazru

Learned counsel for t he appellanthas sublnit t ed t hat rightof prenpt ion on t he basis of bem ga cosharer had been t aken away by t he st at ut e in view ofI 42ryanaAm endm ent sAct No O of 1995 and as such all t he decrees passedby t he Court s below would becolne invalid and This aspectof lhe case has been duly dealt in bv bot h t he Court s below Aut horit yShvam Sundcr vs Ram Kum ar and anot her 2001 21 Puniab Law Report cr 332 is com plet canswerlo t hat obj ect ion I t has been laid down by t he Const it ut ional 13enchofHonble Apcx Court t hat once a decree of prenpt ion has been passedt he repcalingof t he provisions of preem pt ionAct lat er on would not m ake t he decree inoperat ive The am eondinentwould be in nat ure and not ret rospect ive The fact s of t he presentcase are cryst alclear t hat Civil Suit No3 dat ed311992 by way of preem piionwas filed t he sale deed in favour of Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original 1 PHHC,Chandigarh adj udicat ionwas decreed on 1481 993 The 11hatsuit aft er Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document preferred 1 r 0 0 I C I Z r I 08 r 7 Z r I l J 69 ESA No of 2008 4 against dat ed 1481993 and t hat appealwas dism issed and decreedat ed 171 11994 passedbyShri MLSharm a t he t hen leam edAddit ional Dist rict JudgeGurgaon The RSA N0350 of 1995 before HighCourt of Punj aband Haryana second appealwas also disinissed on 193 1997 So in VlCW of aut horit at ive by Apex Court in Shyam Sunders case 4supralt he decree dat ed 1481993hich has been filed afOrm ed by bot h t he Court s below lS a valid decrec So t hc quest ionof I aw whet her t he am endinent Act No10 of 1995 has lakeonaway t he right st o execule t he decreeofpreem pt ionst andsansweredagainstt he appellant The ot her legalpointraised by t he counsel I for t he appellant1S t hat lant is in possession of t he propcrt ysince 7A1992 ie t he dat e of execut ion of t he sale deed in his favour and as such t he execut ionhas becoine t iine barred is concerned t hat subm ission is wit hout anysubst ance The regularsecondappealwas dislnissed on 193007 So I am of t he considered view t hat decree can be execut ed wit hin 12 years from t hat dat e So t he pointoflim it at ion raisedby t he appellantst andsalso answeredagainstt he appellant Learned counsel for t he appellantls furt her subm it t ed t hat l kanal 15 inarlas of land has been by t he obj ect orfor a considerat ionof Rs80001 vide sale deed dat ed7A 1992 Even if t he sale deed is preem pt edt he j udgm entdebt or will cont inue owner on account of secondsale deedat ed 7A1992 I have carefullyconsideredlhe said subnlission but do not flnd Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh 70 ESA No of 2008 1 41 5 anyforce in t hat subinission Maj idson of Mam rajhad execut ed sale deed in respectof Y t shareof khewat No Khewat Khat a Nt 040149Kllla No5112011 lll 2111199t ot al land m easuring13 kanals 6 m arlas sit uat ed in village NangalShahpurThsil FerozepurJhirka Dist rict Gurgaonand t hat sale deed been preem pt edAs perAnncxure P4 t he sale deed al I egedt o be IS 1t l respectof different khasra num bers 1 No511111211 lll respectof 1z share of khasra in villageKuspuri Sale deed dat ed 52 1997 lS in of Killa No5112011 72111Olsit uat ed in villageNangalShahpurTchsil l7erozepurJhirka dist rct C9urgaonSo t he landinvolved as per Annexures P3 and P4 is different I n view of t he above discussion t he aproealis wit hout any inerit and t he salne st andsdism issed A copy of t his j udgm entbe sent t o t he t rial Court for st ricl 1 JlJDGE m Q 0 0 I C5 I Z C I 08 r 7 Z t l JanuarylL SV 2010 y4001 9 Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1