Raghunath Singh and Another vs Kamla Devi and Another

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a Plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption.

The Plaintiffs came to court alleging that one Karim Bax had sold the land in dispute on May 5, 1957, for Rs. 3000/- to Smt. Kamla Devi, and the latter had in turn transferred a part of the land to Subhash Chand. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession of the land as tenants on the date of the sale and had a preferential right of pre-emption as against Smt. Kamla Devi. They prayed for a decree for possession on payment of Rs. 3000/-.

The suit was contested by the defenants on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption, that they were not tenants and therefore they were not entitled to maintain the suit.

The trial court dismissed the suit and an appeal against its decree has been dismissed by the lower appellate court.

It was not disputed before the lower appellate court that the property was evacuee property and had vested in the Custodian. It was allotted by the Custodian to one Rai Singh (Rai Chand) in 1948 and it appears that the Plaintiffs became tenants under that allottee. Subsequently, when the allotment in favour of Rai Singh terminated, the land was allotted in favour of another. In this manner a chain of allotments took place one after the other, and ultimately Karim Bax became the allottee. The lower appellate court has held that in the circumstances it could not be said that the Plaintiffs continued as tenants of the land.

It seems to me that this appeal has no force. Even assuming that the Plaintiffs were tenants of Rai Singh, that tenancy automatically terminated with the expiry of the allotment in favour of Rai Singh, land subsequently the allottees took their allotments directly from the Custodian and had nothing to do with Rai Singh. They were not the successors in interest of Rai Singh. No interest was transferred to them by Rai Singh. The engagement between the Custodian and Rai Singh had come to an end and the engagement between the Custodian and the subsequent allottees were fresh engagements which did not flow from the engagement with Rai Singh. Merely because the Plaintiffs could be described as the tenants of Rai Singh does not mean that automatically they continued as tenants of the subsequent allottees. In order to give them that status it was necessary that there should be a fresh arrangement between the subsequent allottees and Rai Singh. It is clear that on the date of the sale the Plaintiffs were not tenants of the land. That being so, they were not entitled to pre-empt the sale.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.