A sale of joint Hindu family property by one of the vendors is not pre-emptible under Section 10 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 2342, 2343 and 2344 of 1983 and 89, 97, 86 and 88 of 1984, as all these appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated 27th September, 1983.

2. Four brothers Mool Chand, Ishwar Chand, Bishan Dass and Tek Chand sons of Assa Nand, sold their lands to Hardial Singh, Ashok Kumar and Smt. Phul Kaur by different sale deeds. Mool Chand sold the land measuring 24 kanals for Rs. 28,500/- vide sale deed dated 10th June, 1977, Ishwar Chand sold land measuring 22 kanals 5 marlas for a sum of Rs. 28,500/- on 18th June, 1977, Bishan Dass sold land measuring 22 kanals 5 marlas on 18th June, 1977 for a sum of Rs. 28,500/- and Tek Chand sold his land measuring 24 kanals 7 marlas for a sum of Rs. 30,500/- on 7th May, 1977. Rakesh Kumar son of Ishwar Chand vendor filed four suits challenging the said sales made by his father and his fathers brothers claiming that he has a superior right of pre-emption being the son of vendor Ishwar Chand and the vendors brothers son of the other three vendors. The suits were contested on behalf of the vendees inter alia on the ground that defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. Hardial Singh and Ashok Kumar s/o Vijay Singh were the tenants upon the suit land at the time of sale and as regards the third vendees Smt. Phul Kaur, she was only a benamidar - the actual vendees were Hardial Singh and Vijay Singh. Secondly, the suit land being the joint Hindu family property of the vendors qua the pre- emptor, the sale was not pre-emptible under Section 10 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act. The trial Court found that the vendee defendants No. 2 and 3 had successfully proved that they were tenants on the suit land at and before the time of sale, under the vendors and the purchase of suit land by defendant No. 4 i.e. Smt. Phul Kaur was benami. The plea under Section 10 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act taken on behalf of the defendants was negatived. In view of the earlier finding, all the suits filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed. As regards the sale made by Ishwar Chand father of the plaintiff pre-emptor, it was further found that the suit property was joint Hindu family property and therefore the sale was not pre-emptible under Section 10 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act. Dissatisfied with the same, plaintiff-pre-emptors filed four appeals in the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. In appeal, the learned lower appellate Court found that the sale in favour of Smt. Phul Kaur was not benami as held by the trial Court. However, the finding of the trial Court that the other two vendees Hardial Singh and Vijay Singh were the tenants on the suit land at the time of sale was upheld. The finding in the case of sale by Ishwar Chand father of the plaintiff was maintained to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 10 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Thus ultimately the plaintiffs suit with respect to the sale made by his father Ishwar Chand was dismissed whereas in the other three suits with respect to the sale of 2/3rd share in favour of Hardial Singh and Vijay Singh were also dismissed but plaintiffs suit to the extent of 1/3rd share of Smt. Phul Kaur was decreed on payment of proportionate sale price. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties have filed the said appeals.

3. The plaintiff has filed Regular Second Appeal Nos. 86, 87, 89 and 88 of 1984 whereas the other appeals have been filed on behalf of the vendees.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-pre-emptor contended that it has been wrongly found by the Courts below that Hardial Singh and Vijay Singh vendees were the tenants on the suit land at the time of the sale. According to the learned counsel, the change in the entries of Khasra Girdawari in Kharif 1976 was manipulated by the defendants, no notice was given to the vendor before effecting the change in the Khasra Girdawari nor the procedure prescribed under the I