IMPORTANT POINT
Having sold the lands to the stranger, the vendor cannot plead invalidity of the title of his vendees selling the same lands to another stranger on the ground that the title is invalid, due to pre-emption right under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-Leave granted.

2. Substitution of legal representatives of the first respondent is allowed.

3. Bhagwan Singh, the respondent had sold 48 canals of land from undivided joint family properties, but in specie to Prithvi, Rattan, Krishan sons of Banwari and Karan Singh son of Sis Ram on June 15, 1978. Admittedly, they were strangers to Bhagwan Singh and were resident of village Malkos. The lands are situated in village Kayala. Though the sale deed was questioned by the wife and children of the respondent, the litigation proved unsuccessful. Privthi Singh and Krishan have subsequently sold 34 canals 13 marlas purchased from Bhagwan Singh to the appellant. Rattan Singh also has sold 13 canals 7 marlas of the said land on May 18, 1982. Bhagwan Singh, thereafter, filed the suit for pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Apart from other pleas, the principle plea was that being co-owner, he is entitled to pre-emption of the land purchased by the appellant. Though, the trial Court dismissed the suit, on appeal, the suit was decreed and the High Court in Second Appeal No. 2671/86 by judgment and order dated October 29, 1986 upheld it. Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri Bagga, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Bhagwan Singh, having himself sold the property in spieces to strangers from whom the appellant had purchased, has no right to exercise the right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Act. Alternatively, it is contended that Haryana State Legislature has amended Section 15 of the Act by Amendment Act 10 of 1995 which has come into effect from May 7, 1995 substituting Section 15 of the principal Act whereunder the right of pre-emption is vested only in a tenant who held the land under tenancy of the vendor or part of the vendor s land sold.

5. Shri A.K. Sen, the learned senior counsel for the respondents, contended that Bhagwan Singh, being a co-owner with his co-parcenars or joint owners, is entitled under Section 15 to exercise the right of pre-emption statutorily given to a co-owner. A stranger cannot be inducted against the wishes of the co-owners into the co-parcenary or joint family property. Bhagwan Singh, having undivided interest in the co-parcenary, had a right to lay the suit for pre-emption under Section 15. The subsequent amendment is of no avail since the suit had already been decreed and this Court can confirm the decree validly passed before the Amendment Act had come into force. Therefore, the appellate Court and the High Court were right in granting decree for pre-emption.

6. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the view that the contentions of Shri Bagga merit acceptance. It is seen that Bhagwan Singh himself had sold the land to the strangers to the family. The lands sold were in specie from the co-parcenary property. Having inducted the strangers into the property, he cannot object to his vendees selling the property to the third parties and claim right of pre-emption from them. In a case of pre-emption as in any other the plaintiff has to establish a number of facts to succeed in his claim. It is hardly necessary to point out that cases of pre-emption are no exception to the rule of estoppel to be found in Section 115, Evidence Act. The plea of estoppel may be grounded on an indefinite variety of facts. But the precise question for consideration is whether in a case where the purchaser buys property relying on an implied assurance of the pre-emptor that he will not pre-empt the purchaser can invoke the doctrine of estoppel against the pre-emptor. Having sold the lands to the strangers, he cannot plead invalidity of the title of his vendees selling the same lands to another stranger on the ground that the title is invalid, due to pre-emption right, under the Act. We appreciate that other co-owners might have a right since they may seem to object to the strangers coming into the co-parcenary estate jointly held