A tenant has the right to preempt the sale of agricultural land, including both the tenanted portion and the un-tenanted portion, if any, as per the interpretation of Section 15(1) of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, by the Supreme Court.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1356, 1357 and 1358 of 1997. All these three appeals have been preferred by equal number of defendants qua the suits filed against each of them by the plaintiff, Jora Singh (respondent herein) for possession. The suits have been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. In brief, the facts are that plaintiff, Jora Singh filed three suits for possession in respect of land measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas (in each suit) as per Jamabandi for the year 1984-85, being 1/5th share of land measuring 118 kanals 8 marlas, pleading therein that he being a tenant for the last 30-35 years over the land is entitled to preempt the sale made by Amir Singh son of Gulab Singh vide registered sale-deed dated 26.10.1988 for a consideration of Rs. 41,250/-. In the suit, he also challenged order dated 12.10.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector II grade whereby entries in favour of plaintiff in the khasra girdawaries were changed ex-parte. Suits were contested by the defendants by taking the plea that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land at the time of sale and the suits have been filed on the basis of false and wrong entries in the revenue record. Further, it was pleaded that the sale consideration is Rs. 58,815/- and not Rs. 41,250/-. Order dated 12.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector II Grade was stated to be legal and in accordance with law and binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence brought on record, decreed the suits of the plaintiff for possession by way of preemption subject to payment of Rs. 55,302/- in each suit on or before 26.10.1994 failing which suits of the plaintiff were ordered to be dismissed. Defendants filed appeals in each suit and the same too have been dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present second appeals.

3. It has been contended by Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, counsel for defendants, that the defendants were given possession of the suit land before execution of the sale-deed and wrong entries in favour of plaintiff in the revenue record were corrected by order dated 12.10.1990 passed by tie Assistant Collector H grade. In this regard, he submitted that in the Jamabandis, the name in the column of possession is shown of Jora Singh (plaintiff) and his two brothers, Nidhan Singh and Santa Singh, whereas it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that his brothers, Nidhan Singh and , Santa Singh died 20 years ago. He thus contended that despite the death, the entries are still continuing in their names and from this, an inference can be drawn-that the entries in the Jamabandis are wrong. He further contended that in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85, land measuring 76 kanals 14 marlas has been shown to be in possession of owners and plaintiff, Jora Singh and his brothers have been shown in possession of the remaining land. From this entry in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85, counsel wanted to impress upon this Court that order dated 12.10.1990 whereby khasra girdawaries relating to the suit land were changed from the name of tenants in the names of owners from Rabi, 1985 onwards, is valid.Lastly, he contended that in the revenue record, plaintiff is shown as tenant along with his brothers, Nidhan Singh and Santa Singh, both of whom have died and so, the plaintiffs share in no case can be more than l/3rd. Against this, Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, for the plaintiff has contended that both the Courts below on reading of the revenue record have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff is a tenant on suit land since 1959-60. He contended that the defendants cannot take advantage of the entry in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85 showing the owners in possession of land measuring 76 kanals 14 marlas as alteration in the entries was made without any notice to the plaintiff. He contended that previously the land was being cultivated as tenant by the plaintiff along w