Gurdev Singh, J.

1. The question for the consideration of this Full Bench may be stated thus:-

-

"Whether a vendee who has joined with him a stranger in purchasing agricultural land or immovable property can by acquiring the interest of the stranger co-vendee by gift or sale successfully resist a suit for pre-emption in view of the provisions of Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?"

2. It has arisen in the following manner:-

-

Gharib Singh, Harnam Singh, Partap Singh and Kartar Singh, four sons of Kishna, jointly held 225 Kanals 9 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Kiampur. Kartar Singh having died, his son Harchand Singh sold his 1/4 th share to his uncle Graham Singh and his wife Shrimati Gurnam Kaur by a registered sale deed, dated 15th March, 1966 (Exhibit D. A.) for Rs.4000/-. On 15th March, 1967, Harnam Singh, a brother of Gharib Singh vendee, brought suit for pre-emption on the plea that he was a cosharer and also near collateral of the vendor Harchand Singh. During the pendency of the suit, on 10th June, 1968, Shrimati Gurnam Kaur made a gift of her share of the land which she had jointly purchased with her husband to her co-vendee Gharib Singh. Taking advantage of this gift in his favour Gharib Singh resisted the suit for pre-emption inter alia on the plea that as a result of the gift in his favour, his wife Shrimati Gurnam Kaur (who was a stranger) had ceased to have any interest in the property and his own right being equal to that of the pre-emptor, the suit must fail. This contention prevailed with the learned trial Judge, and after dealing with other issues arising in the case, he dismissed the suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, however took a different view about the effect of acquisition of his wifes interest by Gharib Singh and holding that this did not operate to restore him to his original position, he decreed the plaintiffs claim.

3. In the second appeal preferred by Gharib Singh, the only point debated before a learned Single Judge of this Court related to the effect of this gift made in favour of Gharib Singh by his wife. The learned Single Judge relying on an unreported decision of S. R. Das, C. J. in S. A. No. 382 of 1948, D/- 29-6-49 (Punj), which was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1949, Tej Ram V/s. Puran, decided on 16-4-1951 (Punj), held that acquisition by Gharib Singh of the share of his wife under the gift amounted to improvement of his status in view of the provisions of Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 , Gharib Singh could not benefit by the same. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge that has given rise to this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. In Hayat Bakhsh V/s. Mansabdar Khan, AIR 1935 Lah 529, a Division Bench (Addison and Din Mohammed, JJ) after reiterating the long established rule that if a vendee having an equal right of pre-emption associates with himself in a joint purchase a stranger, or a person having no right to first refusal under the Act, he loses his right of resistance and cannot be allowed to retain even his own share of the purchase, however, held that he would be entitled to resist successfully the pre-emptors suit if he removed the defect and clothed himself with right equal to that of the pre-emptor. In this connection, Din Mohammed, J. speaking for the Court observed thus:-

-

"We are in full accord with this view and hold therefore in respectful dis-agreement with AIR 1933 Lah 117 as well as 91 Pun Re 1909 (FB) that the principle laid down in AIR 1933 Lah 481 represents correct view of the law on the point. It would look anomalous if a pre-emptor is permitted to divest a vendee of the property that he has legally acquired on the ground of a preferential right although at the time when the vendee is being so deprived the pre-emptor does not possess any such preference."

5. Again the same learned Judges ruled in Jas Raj Juniwal V/s. Gokal Cha