Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rustam Ali vs Pritam Singh And Others on 16 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No. 26 of 2021 a/w RSA No. 218 of 2020
Date of Decision: 16th May, 2025
1. RSA No. 26 of 2021
Rustam Ali
...... appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh and others
......Respondents
2. RSA No. 218 of 2020
Rustam Ali ...... appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh and others
......Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the
appellant(s) in both the appeal.
For the respondents : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondents .
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge(oral)
Both these appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short, CPC), have assailed the judgment and decree
dated 14.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Kangra at Dharamshala H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 37-J/2014 affirming
the judgment and decree dated 20-08-2014 passed by the learned Civil
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. Hence they
are being taken up together.
2. The appellant (plaintiff) had initially filed a suit in the lower
court against the respondents (defendants) seeking a declaration qua his
preferential right to purchase the suit property, comprising 1/23 shares of
defendant No. 2 in the specified land situated in village Chandani, Mauza
Bhali, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, HP, as per the jamabandi for the
year 2000-2001. The plaintiff claimed this right as a Class-I heir under the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, subject to depositing the sale consideration
of Rs. 42,000/- along with registration expenses. He further alleged that
the sale deed dated 10.06.2004, executed by defendant No. 2 in favour
of defendant No. 1, was illegal, null, and void. Additionally, he sought an
injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the land, raising
constructions, or cutting trees.
3. The plaintiff contended that the suit land was originally
owned by Machala, son of Sukhia, and upon his death, it devolved upon
the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6 as Class-I heirs in equal shares.
He asserted that defendant No. 6, being the son of Vidya Devi (who
predeceased Machala), also inherited an equal share. While defendants
No. 5 and 6 had relinquished their shares in favour of the plaintiff,
defendant No. 2 sold her share to defendant No. 1 without offering it to
the plaintiff, despite his readiness to purchase it. The plaintiff claimed
that, being a Class-I heir, he had a preferential right to acquire the land,
rendering the sale deed void. Alternatively, he sought joint possession
and a direction to defendant No. 1 to execute a sale deed in his favour for
Rs. 42,000/-.
4. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 3, who
denied the plaintiff's claims and asserted that defendant No. 1 was in
settled possession. They further alleged that the plaintiff had refused to
purchase the land and instead demanded its relinquishment without
consideration.
5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the
following issues on 29.08.2005:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are having a preferential right
to acquire suit property in consideration of Rs. 42,000/-,
as alleged? OPP
(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?
OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit
due to his act and conduct? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is the
valuation?
OPD.
(6) Relief.
6. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court partly decreed
the suit in favour of the plaintiff, answering issue No. 1 partially in his
favour and the remaining issues against the defendants.
7. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court,
both the plaintiff and defendant preferred separate first appeals. The first
appellate court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeals filed by
defendant No 1 and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved
by the same, the defendant No.1 has filed two second appeals,
challenging the impugned judgment and decree primarily on the grounds
that the courts below failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly,
thereby rendering the decision unsustainable.
8. Perused the impugned judgment and heard counsel for the
parties.
9. In the Present case the Trial Court held that as far as
Defendant 1 was concerned the sale deed qua agricultural land was valid
and qua non-agricultural land was invalid as the plaintiff was having a
preferential right to purchase said land. However, the first Appellate court
in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case reported as Babu
Ram V. Santokh Singh Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 2019 arising out of
SLP(Civil) No. 31039 of 2018 held that provisions of section 22 of the
Hindu Succession Act are equally applicable to the non-agricultural land,
corrected the error of the trial court and held that the plaintiff has a
preferential right to purchase the agricultural as well as non-agricultural
land of the sale deed.
10. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Defendants that
Defendant No. 1 is a Bona fide purchaser and without notice is without
merit as the said plea was never taken by the defendant No.1 in his
written statement and hence was rightly rejected by both the Courts
below.
11. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there
arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for
consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeals are dismissed being
devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
May 16th, 2025(Tarun/T.M) Judge
