The judgment established that the custom of pre-emption prevailing in a walled city may not necessarily apply to an extended city, based on legal precedents and interpretations of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Sabina, J.

1. Plaintiff Manohar Lal Hans filed a suit for pre-empting the sale which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.1997. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.1998. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 7 of its judgment, are as under :-

"2, Briefly, case of the plaintiff/appellant is that he has been the tenant, on the ground floor of the suit property continuously, since May, 1965. Sh. A.D. Nangia, original owner of the suit property, resident of New Delhi, sold it to the original vendees/defendants namely Prem Virand others, vide impugned registered sale deed dated 20.2.1992 (Ex.P-1), for ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- without any notice to him, in clandestine manner. Real sale price was only Rs. 1,00,000/- but in order to ward off pre- emption, excessive amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-was mentioned therein.

3 It is pleaded that Hisar Town was founded historically by Feroz Shah Tuglak in the 14th Century (1354 AD) under its initial name of Hisar Feroza (Fort of Feroz). This name later on, with passes of time, contracted into Hisar. Being founded by Mohammaden, ruler custom of preemption was prevalent in Hisar Town, even before the commencement of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Initially being a fort city (walled city) Hisar Town extended within its four gates. The Town then gradually expanded outside the walled city into its population in outer Mohalla Sanian, Mohalla Dogran, Mohalla Kumharan various colonies also gradually came up into existence as extension of Hisar Town. Hisar Town mainly grew and expanded alongwith Hisar Sirsa-Delhi Road, now known as National High Way No.10, which passes through the town. Residential localities like Het Ram Colony also came up along with its. All these are within Municipal Limits of Hisar Town.

4. Custom of Pre-emption existed in the Hisar Town at the time of commencement of Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, so in the expanded and the extended area of the Town, including of Het Ram Colony, being part and parcel of Hisar Town, the said custom of pre-emption would deemed to exist. Abandonment of the custom has never been proved or established. Number of Judicial pronouncements also prove the existence of custom of pre-emption, the plaintiff being tenant in the suit property, has thus superior right to pre-empt the sale; hence this suit.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant/vendees namely Prem Virand others, sold the suit property to present defendant Sandeep Bansal, vide sale deed dated 21.10.1993 (Ex.P-11), specifically mentioning therein, the fact of pendency of this suit of pre-emption. The said original defendant/vendees had opted not to contest the suit, they were duly proceeded ex parte. The case was then fixed for recording ex parte evidence of the plaintiff, when an application was filed by Sandeep Bansal/subsequent vendee, for being impleaded as party. The application was allowed by the trial Court on 13.1.1994. Plaintiff/appellant went before the Honble High Court in civil revision No. 1659 of 1994 challenging the impleading of Sandeep Bansal. Learned counsel of Sandeep Bansal in the High Court, in the presence of Sandeep Bansal, gave statement to the High Court that by virtue of that order impleading Sandeep Bansal as respondent/defendant as party to the suit Sandeep Bansal would not claim any better right, then his vendors rights, legally had or may have in the suit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed by the Honble High Court, subject to that statement clarifying that the suit was only against the original vendees.

6. Trial Court vide its order dated. 16.8.1994 allowed Sandeep Bansal to file his written statement. This order was again challenged by the plaintiff/appellant in the Honble High Co