Om Singh vs Bhateri alias Ram Bhateri

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner impugns the order of the trial Sub Judge, Gurgaon, dated 25th July, 1990, whereby his and his codefendant''s effort to non suit the plaintiffrespondent right at the threshold has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts are as follows :

The respondent Smt. Ram Bhateri filed the present suit in terms of clause Fourthly of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Preemption Act (as applicable to Haryana) to preempt the sale in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner filed the present application with the plea that since clauses 1 to 3 of this subsection have already been struck down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 S.C. 859 : 1987 RRR 116, it is clear that no blood relation of the vendor even though he happened to be a cosharer with him is entitled to Preempt the sale under clause Fourthly of the Punjab Preemption Act. In other words, the plea of the petitioner was that since the plaintiff happened to be a sister of the vendor, she could not be entitled to enforce her right under the abovenoted clause i.e. Fourthly, on the basis that she happened to be a cosharer in the suit land. This plea of the plaintiff has rightly been negatived in the light of an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported as Nand Kishore v. Avtar Singh, 1988 PLJ 47 : 1988(1) RRR 574 which contains the following observations :

"The lower Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiffs are cosharers and therefore, entitled to preempt the sale. Even so, the suit was dismissed on the ground that one of the vendors was a female and therefore, Section 15(2) of the Punjab Preemption Act was attracted to the case. Section 15(2) having been struck down by this Court in Atam Parkash''s case the right to preempt could not be enforced. There is a clear fallacy in the conclusion of the lower Courts. The plaintiffs did not seek to enforce any right to preempt under Section 15(2) of the Act. Their case fell directly under the Fourth clause of Section 15(1) (b) whose validity was upheld in Atam Parkash''s case."

I therefore, find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with costs which I determine at Rs. 500/.