1. Tenant seeks pre-emption under Section 15, Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, following land sale; subsequent eviction and government notifications extinguishing pre-emption rights in municipal areas. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1052
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[CITED ORDER]
A.M. AHMADI, S.C. AGRAWAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
DIDAR SINGH AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
ISHAR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS - Respondents.
With
Civil Appeal No. 3668 of 1984
DIDAR SINGH AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Respondents
With
Civil Appeal No. 3273 of 1984
STATE OF HARYANA - Appellant;
Versus
AVNISH CHANDER AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4823-28 of 1984 with Nos. 3668 and 3273 of 1984
Decided on October 20, 1994
Important Points
The decisive date for determining the right of pre-emption is the date of the decree. Subsequent dispossession of the pre-emptor or government notifications extinguishing the right of pre-emption issued after the trial court's decree do not invalidate the pre-emptor's right to enforce the decree.
Subject
Property Law - PRE-EMPTION
Act Referred
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913: S.15, S.8(2)
Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order, 1968
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953: S.9(1), S.9-A
Code of Civil Procedure: S.2(2), O.20 R.14(1), O.20 R.7
Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order, 1968
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953: S.9(1), S.9-A
Code of Civil Procedure: S.2(2), O.20 R.14(1), O.20 R.7
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –Rule 14 of Order 20 – Section 2 – Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 –Section 15 and 8 – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Section 9 –Factual matrix is that the appellants purchased different parcels of land situate in city of Ambala under separate registered sale respondent, who was tenant in respect of the said lands, instituted suits to enforce the right of pre-emption conferred by adopted in the State of Haryana under the Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order, 1968 – Suits were decreed by separate judgments rendered judgment and decree the respondents right of pre-emption was recognised and he was granted time to deposit court fee within one month and respondent complied with these conditions within the time allowed by decree – Held, High Court of Punjab in Question 1 was formulated on basis of similar contention urged before Full Bench which held that in suit for pre-emption the claimant must prove that his right to pre-empt subsisted till decree of the first court and loss of the right after decree by an act beyond his control did not affect his claim notification extinguishing the right of pre-emption in property issued during the pendency of appeal against decree of the trial court did not disentitle the plaintiffs to maintain their claim of pre-emption already exercised and decreed law which is holding field by Full Bench of the Punjab High Court is not shown – Appeal is disposed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
- land law
Table of Contents
2. Whether eviction before deposit of purchase money or subsequent government notifications extinguishing pre-emption rights render a pre-emption decree unenforceable. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. The date of the decree is the date of judgment; subsequent eviction or notifications extinguishing rights after the decree date do not invalidate the pre-emptor's title. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
4. In pre-emption suits, the right to pre-empt must subsist until the date of the decree; subsequent loss of right does not affect the decreed claim. (Para 4 , 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed; pre-emption decree affirmed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Does the date of a pre-emption decree shift to the date the purchase money is deposited?
No. The decree bears the date the judgment was pronounced. Under Order 20 Rule 14(1) CPC, while title passes upon payment, the decisive date for the existence of the pre-emptor's right is the date of the decree. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does the eviction of a pre-emptor after the passing of a pre-emption decree but before the deposit of purchase money render the decree unenforceable?
No. The pre-emptor must possess the right to pre-empt until the date of the decree. If the right is not defeated by the date of the decree, subsequent dispossession does not set the decree aside. (Para 4 )
8. Does a government notification extinguishing the right of pre-emption issued during the pendency of an appeal affect a pre-emption decree passed by the trial court?
No. If the claimant's right to pre-empt subsisted until the date of the first court's decree, a subsequent loss of that right by an act beyond their control does not disentitle them from the decreed claim. (Para 7 )
ORDER
Civil Appeals Nos. 4823-28 of 1984
1. These six appeals arise out of the judgment rendered in Regular Second Appeal No. 251 of 1981 by learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 25-7-1984 which came to be followed in Second Appeals Nos. 252-56 of 1981. As the issue involved in these appeals is identical, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common order.
2. The factual matrix is that the appellants purchased different parcels of land situate in the city of Ambala under separate registered sale deeds. The respondent, who was tenant in respect of the said lands, instituted suits to enforce the right of pre-emption conferred by Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 as adopted in the State of Haryana under the Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order, 1968 . The suits were decreed by separate judgments rendered on 30-9-1980. By the said judgment and decree the respondents right of pre-emption was recognised and he was granted time to deposit the court fee within one month and the remaining 4/5th sale price by 27 -11-1980. Admittedly, the respondent complied with these conditions within the time allowed by the decree.
3. It appears that in the meantime on 29-7-1980 the appellant landowners had instituted proceedings for eviction of the respondent from the lands in question under Section 9(1) read with Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The application for eviction was accepted by an order dated 3-10-1980. This was subsequent to the pre-emption decree passed on 30-9-1980. The appellant landowners took possession of the land by evicting the respondent on 11-10-1980. Notwithstanding his eviction the respondent deposited the 4/5th amount pursuant to the decree of 30-9-1980 on 26-11-1980. The first appeal preferred by the appellants against the preemption decree was dismissed on 6-1-1981. On 28-7-1983 notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act was issued but the same came to be quashed on 2-2-1984. The regular second appeals which have given rise to these appeals were dismissed on 25-7-1984. Hence, the present appeals by special leave. It appears that in the meantime the State of Haryana issued another notification dated 8-10-1985 under the very same provision declaring that no right of pre-emption shall exist in respect of sales of land falling in the areas of any municipality in the State of Haryana. There is no dispute that the suit lands were before the issuance of the notifications dated 28-7-1983 and 8-10-1985.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants made two submissions before us. Firstly he contended that since the decree for eviction had been executed on 11-10-1980 before the deposit of the 4/5th amount on 26-11-1980 the right to enforce the decree stood defeated and, therefore, the decree ought to be set aside as unenforceable. In this connection, the High Court observed that the relevant date was the date of the passing of the decree i.e. 30-9-1980 and not the date on which 4/5th of the amount was deposited. The High Court took the view and, in our opinion, rightly, that once decree for enforcement of the pre-emption right was passed the subsequent deposit of the court fee and purchase money within the time allowed by the decree cannot change the date of the decree because the decree is not preliminary decree so to say. Therefore, on the date of the passing of the decree since the respondent continued to be in possession of the lands in question his subsequent dispossession w.e.f. 11-10-1980 will not set the decree at naught. The term "decree" is defined by Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the amending Act of 1976 to mean the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. So what the decree conveys is formal expression of
