Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Bhanwar Singh vs Lala Ram And Others on 22 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
135 2024:PHHC:041971
RSA-457-1991 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.03.2024
BHANWAR SINGH ..Appellant
Versus
LALA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate
for respondent No.1 to 4.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This is the defendant's regular second appeal against the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing
plaintiffs suit for pre-emption on the ground that the plaintiffs are in
possession of property as tenants. There is a slight modification in the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court as during the
pendency of the appeal, one of the plaintiff relinquished his share in favour
of the vendee namely Sh. Bhawar Singh by entering into settlement. Thus,
the suit has been decreed to the extent of 3/4th share of the suit.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh. Deep Chand son of Sh. Ram Dass was owner of the
property. Sh. Lala Ram, Sh. Narain, Sh. Tej Ram and Sh. Bal Ram sons of
Sh. Kabbu son of Sh. Sohan Lal (the plaintiffs) were cultivating the land as
tenant. Sh. Deep Chand sold the land to Sh. Bhawar Singh vide registered
sale deed dated 18.11.1985. The aforesaid plaintiffs filed the suit claiming
superior right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-Emption
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041971
2024:PHHC:041971
RSA-457-1991 (O&M) -2-
Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the '1913 Act'). Sh. Bhawar Singh
contested the suit. He claimed that he has filed an application seeking
ejectment of the petitioners in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and
the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit.
4. In order to narrow down the issues involved in the present case,
statements of Sh. Lala Ram one of the plaintiff and Sh. Bhawar Singh were
recorded on oath prior to the settlement of issues. Sh. Bhawar Singh while
appearing in evidence stated on oath that Sh. Lal Ram etc. are in possession
of the property as tenants and they were in possession of the property before
the suit land was purchased. The Court after granting opportunity to the
plaintiff to file replication, decreed the suit on the ground that defendant
No.1 has in substance admitted the plaintiffs case.
5. Defendant No.1 filed the first appeal. During the pendency of
the first appeal, Sh. Tej Ram, one of the plaintiff entered into the settlement
that the plaintiff relinquished his 1/4th share. Thus, the suit qua 1/4th share
was dismissed, whereas, decreed with respect to the remaining 3/4th share
was passed.
6. This appeal has come up for hearing after a period of 33 years.
7. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
Court has erred in decreeing the suit forthwith. He submits that the Court
should have identified the issues involved in the case and called upon the
parties to lead evidence. He submits that in absence thereof, the suit could
not be decreed.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents
while referring to the deposition of Sh. Bhawar Singh (appellant) submits
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041971
2024:PHHC:041971
RSA-457-1991 (O&M) -3-
that the plaintiffs claim was admitted, hence, the suit has been correctly
decreed.
9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
10. Under Section 15 of the 1913 Act, the tenants of the property,
which has been sold, have a superior right of pre-emption. This right
continues to exist in State of Haryana, although, the rights of pre-emption on
the basis of relationship, co-sharer etc. have been omitted.
11. In this case, the Court recorded the statement of the appellant
Sh. Bhawar Singh (vendee). He admitted that the plaintiffs have continued in
possession of the property as tenants prior to his purchase.
12. In these circumstances, the trial Court was not required to
decide any other issue. The admission of the appellant is the best evidence.
The plaintiffs' superior right of pre-emption is a statutory right. Once, the
vendee admitted the aforesaid fact, no further trial of the case was necessary.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is
made out.
14. Dismissed accordingly.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 22nd, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
