RSA No.1953 of 2008

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CM No.5826-C of 2008 &

RSA No.1953 of 2008

Decided on : 19.01.2010

Om Parkash & another

... Appellants

versus

Lala Devi Dayal Bhoo Sewa Trust

& another

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present :

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate

for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondents.

****

1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

2.To be referred to the reporters or not?

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

CM No.5826-C of 2008

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of

6 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RSA No.1953 of 2008

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent

judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the

appellant for preemption of the sale deed in favour of respondent

No.1.

Learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly

RSA No.1953 of 2008

-2-

stated that originally the entire land had been leased out in the

year 1964 to five persons i.e. 1/4^th share to Mulakh Raj, 1/4^th

share to Som Nath and half to appellant No.1 and two other

persons. All these five persons had filed the instant suit for

preemption. However, the Courts below found that all the above

said persons except appellant No.1 had admittedly parted with

whatever share they have of the land in dispute and thus,

dismissed the suit for preemption. The ld. Lower Appellate Court

also affirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit

and further held that even if the appellant No.1 had not handed

over possession or alienated his share yet the suit would be bad

for partial preemption. The following questions have been

proposed:

i)

Whether the impugned judgments and decrees

are the result of misreading of evidence?

ii)

That in case out of several plaintiffs, some of

them part away with possession of land during

pendency of suit, then in that case whether the suit

qua remaining plaintiffs can be termed to be a suit for

partial preemption?

The only question which has been argued by the

learned counsel for the appellants is question No.(ii). Once it is

established that appellant No.1 was joint tenant along with other

persons and in view of the fact that the sale transaction is one

and only 1/6^th of the sale is sought to be preempted it cannot be

denied that the suit is a suit for partial preemption. Question

RSA No.1953 of 2008

-3-

No.(i) is a general question, which needs not to be answered.

Holding the proposed questions against the appellant,

this appeal is dismissed.

January 19, 2010

(AJAY TEWARI)

sonia

JUDGE