A sale in favour of a tenant is not pre-emptible under Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

, J.

1. Makhan Singh, Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Meja Singh agreed to sell the land in dispute to Sewa Singh, Kirpal Singh and Phoola Singh by an agreement dated April 15, 1959, for a sum of Rs. 11,000.00 out of which Rs. 3,600.00 were paid at the time of the execution of the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed by the vendors till May 20, 1959. The vendors, however, did not execute the sale deed with the result that the vendees filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale on October 22, 1959. That suit was decreed in their favour on August 29, 1960, by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Fazilka. The vendors were directed to execute the sale deed and get it registered on or before October 10, 1960, on receipt of the sum of Rs. 7,400.00 from the vendees on account of the balance of the sale price. Instead of obeying that decree, the vendors filed an appeal in this Court and obtained the stay of execution of the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal was dismissed by this Court on January 5, 1965, and thereafter the sale deed was executed on January 15, 1966, by the Ahlmad of the Court in favour of the vendees in execution of the decree for specific performance as was passed by this Court. On March 1, 1966, Gurdial Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Kulwant Singh sons of Makhan Singh, and Mahal Singh son of Mohinder Singh filed the suit for possession by pre-emption of the land purchased by Sewa Singh, Kirpal Singh and Phoola Singh in pursuance of the decree for specific performance in their favour. All the plaintiffs were minors on the date of the suit. The plea on behalf of the defendant-vendees was that they were the tenants on the land in dispute and the sale in their favour was not pre-emptible in view of the provisions of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The learned trial Court decided that issue against the vendees and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on June 15, 1967, on payment of Rs. 11,660.00. The appeal against that decree filed by the defendant-vendees was accepted by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, on October 10, 1967. Against that decree, R. S. A. 1293 of 1967 was filed in this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on September 13, 1971. The present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge with his leave.

2. The point requiring determination is whether the sale in favour of the defendant-vendees, could not be preempted by the plaintiff-pre-emptors on the ground that the sale of the land in suit was in favour of the tenants. The admitted facts are that the defendant vendees were the tenants on the entire land in suit on April 15, 1959, when the agreement for sale was entered into but before the suit for specific performance was filed, they had been deprived of the possession of 5 bighas and 6 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 642 min measuring 3 bighas 15 biswas and Khasra No. 643 min measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas. They were in possession of the remaining land as tenants on the day they filed the suit and continued to be the tenants in occupation of that land on the day the decree for specific performance was passed in their favour in August, 1960. During the pendency of the appeal against that decree in this Court, the defendant-vendees were ejected from the entire land in pursuance of an order of ejectment passed by the revenue Court. At the time the sale deed in favour of the defendant-vendees was executed and registered in January, 1966, by the Ahlmad of the Court, they were not in possession of any part of the land in suit. On these facts, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants that the sale took place in January, 1966, and the status of the defendant-respondents has to be seen on that date. According to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the ownership of the land in suit was tr