Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3816
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Smt. Chawli Devi - Appellant
Versus
Inder Paul - Respondent
RSA No. 941 of 1991 (O and M)
Decided On : 14-05-2018
Salil Bali, Advocate, for the Appellants; Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the law of preemption for co-sharers was still applicable at the time of the suit, and the plaintiffs, as co-sharers, had a right of preemption.
Headnote:
Preemption - Co-sharer's right - The court upheld the lower Appellate Court's decision to decree the suit for possession by way of preemption, as the plaintiffs, who were co-sharers, had a right of preemption and the required notice under the Punjab Preemption Act was not given to them. The law of preemption for co-sharers had been repealed in 1995, but was still applicable to tenants at the time of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants-defendants were in regular second appeal against the finding of fact whereby the suit for possession by way of preemption with respect to the land had been dismissed by the trial Court but reversed by the lower Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by the lower Appellate Court and concluded that no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs, as co-sharers, had a right of preemption and whether the required notice under the Punjab Preemption Act was given to them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the lower Appellate Court's decision based on the fact that the law of preemption for co-sharers had not been repealed at the time of the suit and the plaintiffs had a right of preemption as co-sharers.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and two months time was granted to the respondents-plaintiffs for the purpose of making payment to the appellants-defendants.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J. (Oral) - This Court on 09.03.2018 noticed that there was no representation on behalf of the parties and the Registry was directed to inform the counsel representing the parties about the listing of the matter. It was also made clear that in case the appeal is not argued, the stay granted by this Court, vide order dated 01.05.1991, shall be vacated.
2. Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. The appellants-defendants are in regular second appeal against the finding of fact whereby the suit for possession by way of preemption with respect to the land measuring 80 kanals, comprised in land measuring 13 kanals 7 marlas, being ?rd share of land measuring 40 kanals comprised in Khewat No. 146, Khatauni No. 231 kittas 5 and the land measuring 66 kanals 13 marlas out of ?rd share of the land comprised in Khewat No. 187, Khatauni No. 194, 295 area measuring 359 kanals 15 marlas sold by the vendor Smt. Kalawati vide registered sale deed No. 1186 dated 10.07.1986 in favour of the defendants, challenging the sale deed by claiming the right of preemption had been dismissed by the trial Court. However, the decision taken by the trial Court had been reversed by the lower Appellate Court.
4. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit challenging the sale deed dated 10.07.1986 on the ground that he along with other cosharers i.e. Kalawati having ?rd share in the total land measuring 399 kanals 15 marlas have a right of preemption and as notice required under the provisions of Punjab Preemption Act was never given to them. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have the superior right to preempt the suit land. However, in appeal taken by the respondents-plaintiffs before the lower Appellate Court, the suit was decreed.
5. Concededly, the law of preemption qua co-sharer had been repealed in the year 1995, but with regard to the tenant is applicable. The suit afore mentioned was concededly filed on 16.07.1987. The factum of co-sharer was not denied by the appellants-defendants. In such circumstances, the lower appellate Court had no other option except to decree suit.
6. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by the lower Appellate Court, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out.
7. Two months time is granted to the respondents-plaintiffs for the purpose of making payment to the appellants-defendants.
The appeal is dismissed.
