Jangli and Others vs Lakhmi Chand and Others

Dulat and Khosla, JJ.—This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is from judgment dated 20th of March 4962 of Gurdev Singh J. in Regular Second Appeal 1615 of 1960.

The dispute arose out of the pre-emption suit maintained by the sons of two out of three vendors. The question was whether the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs was maintainable and if so whether the possession could be effectuated of the entire land, subject matter, on payment of the total price.

On 21st of May 1958 Sohan Lal and his brother''s sons Khillu and Faqiria sold by means of registered sale deed village immovable property described with particularity in the plaint, jointly owned, to Jangli and others, defendants Nos. 1 to 4f f0r Rs. 3000/- The suit for possession by pre-emption giving rise to the present proceedings was filed on 4th of November 1958 by Kiran Pal and Lakhmi Chand, sons of the vendors Khillu and Faqiria, Sohan Lal vendor not joining. The trial court (Subordinate Judge) decreed the plaintiffs'' suit on payment of Rs. 3000/-. In vendees'' appeal against the said decree. Senior Subordinate Judge in view of the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as amended held Kiran Pal and Lakhmi Chand Plaintiffs entitled to joint possession by preemption of 5/8th share of the suit land which belonged to their respective-fathers on payment of the proportionate amount of the sale consideration, i.e. 5/8th of Rs. 3000/-. The vendees challenged the judgment of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge in further appeal to this Court. The plaintiff-respondents preferred cross-objections seeking restoration of the decree of the trial court granting possession by pre-emption of the entire land. The learned Single Judge on hearing parties came to the conclusion that each of the plaintiffs was entitled to pre-empt the sale in entirety on payment of the whole amount of consideration e.g. Rs-3000/-. In support of the said conclusion the learned single Judge observed:

Admittedly, the land in suit is the joint property of Sohan Lal Khillu and Faqiria and all of them jointly sold it to defendants 1 to 4." Kiran Pal and Lakhmi Chand, the plaintiffs in the present case, are the sons of Khillu and Faqiria respectively, who are two of the three joint vendors and as such, they fall within the first group of persons who are entitled to pre-empt the sale.

The right to preempt the entire sale no doubt vests in the sons; of the vendors, but this does not mean that the sons of each of the vendors can pre-empt only that share or the property which was held by his father.

In my opinion, the right of pre-emption in case of a sale by all the co-sharers jointly of a joint property vests in each of the persons included in a particular group and each one of them can exercise his right individually irrespective of the fact whether other members of the same group do or do not join in the suit for pre-emption." In view of this provision, it is abundantly clear that all the sons of all the venders, in the case of a joint sale by all the co-sharers, need not join in a suit for pre-emption, and it will be open to one or more of them to pre-empt the sale.

The right which has been given to the sons under this clause is the right to pre-empt the ''sale'' and not a part of the sale. Thus, each of the sons of all the vendors would be entitled to sue for the recovery of the possession of the entire property sold on the basis of his preemptive right.

As respects village immovable property, right of pre-emption has no nexus to the quantum of share heritable from the vendor or vendors. The right of challenge appears to have been given to a class or group of persons to and together by the of relationship with the vendor. Before the amendment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act large number of persons in respect of their relative preferential proximity to the vendor had been select. By the amendment however, that group had been cut down to closer relationship by blood. Obviously, therefore, in our view any ore or more of that class or group could impugn the sale successfully and obtain possession on payment of the total sale price. Learned counsel for the appellants brought to our notice the observations made in. Niranjan etc v. Kehru etc. L. P A. No. 339 of 1961. Letters Patent Appeal No. 339 of 1961, decided on 10th of April, 1963, that case. with respect, seems to have been decided on its own facts and no specific rule on any proposition of law was intended to have been laid. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is cogent and correct, and does not call for interference. This appeal thus fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, we are inclined to leave the parties to their own costs.