Bhag Singh v. Bhajan Singh And Another

1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the tenants suit for pre-emption of the land of which he was a tenant.

2. The sale which has been pre-empted was made on the 29th of May, 1961. The suit was filed on the 29th of May. 1962. The vendees defence was that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the land in dispute. It was further maintained that the plaintiff had to maintain the relationship of landlord and tenant both at the time of the suit as well as at the time of the decree. This matter is not res intgra. It has been held in three decisions of this Court in Chuhar Ram v. Kashmiri Lal (1966) 67 P.L.R. 25 (S.N ), Sohan Singh v. Udho Ram and others (1967)69 P.L.R. 414, and Gurbachan Singh and others v. Bhagat Singh and others (1968)70 P.L.R. 553, that if the tenant is in possession of the land at the date of the sale that would be enough to enable him to get a decree.

3. Mr. Achhara Singh brings to my notice the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Bani Ram v. Manji Ram (1967)69 P.L R. 608 This decision in fact does not take notice of the decisions in Chuhar Rams case and in Sohan Singhs case. In fact the provisions of the Pre-emption Act have not been properly appreciated. With utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, if he wanted to take a contrary view, the matter should have gone to a Division Bench. In any” event, the respondence of authority is in favour of the view that the only requirement, so far as tenant is concerned, is that he should be in possession of the land at the date of the sale and if he is in possession on that date, he is entitled to a decree for pre-emption.

4. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
Bhag Singh v. Bhajan Singh and Another

Tags :-

, ,

Related Judgements

SAMJUBEN GORDHANBHAI KOLI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

  • 2010
  • Supreme Court Of India
We make it clear that the power of the President of India under Article 72 or of the Governor under Article 161, being a constitutional power cannot be under the restriction imposed by Section 433-A Cr.P.C.
Read More

KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. Vs STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  • 2022
  • Supreme Court Of India
In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Patna is set aside. The impugned F.I.R. No. 248 of 2019 against the Appellants under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC stands quashed.
Read More

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs RAJ KUMAR @ BITTU

  • 2021
  • Supreme Court Of India
The case for premature release of the prisoner in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 13.8.2008, the policy which was applicable on the date of his conviction, can be considered only after he completes 14 years of actual imprisonment. However, the State Government can consider the prisoner in question for premature release after undergoing imprisonment for less than 14 years only under Article 161 of the Constitution.
Read More

GAURI SHANKAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB

  • 2021
  • Supreme Court Of India
t is true that the punishment of remainder of natural life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge but after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Read More