AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated
11.09.2014 passed in CWJC No.3081 of 2014 by which the learned
Single Judge has been pleased to upheld the views taken by the trial
court, revisional court and the order passed by the Bihar Land
Tribunal (BLT) and dismissed the writ application refusing to
interfere with the orders passed by those authorities.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
because the elder brother of appellant no.1 is in the boundary of the
vended land and it is his case that the land standing in the name of his
elder brother is a joint family property in which the appellant no.1 is a
co-sharer, the claim of preemption was not fit to be allowed. His
further submission is that by executing the gift deed in favour of
appellant no.2, the appellant no.1 has rightly taken steps permissible
in law to defeat the right of pre-emption.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the
private respondents (pre-emptors) submits that the arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellants are liable to be rejected. The first
submission of the appellants is a totally misconceived submission
inasmuch as the appellant no.1 has not made out a case that the lands
shown in the name of his elder brother is ancestral land recorded
earlier in the name of common ancestors in any records of rights
which would have given him a plea to take that he has got share in the
said land by devolution of the inheritable rights with respect to the
ancestral property. If that is not the submission of the appellant no.1,
the very fact that the land is standing in the name of elder brother of
appellant no.1 cannot be taken as a joint family property and,
therefore, no illegality has been committed by the original court of
DCLR in taking a view in favour of the pre-emptors. The said view
has been affirmed by the revisional court and the BLT. The second
submission of the appellant has also been assailed by the learned
counsel for the respondents submitting that there is contradiction in
the argument on behalf of the appellants. On the one hand the
appellant no.1 submits that he had also purchased the vended plot out
of the joint family property or income in order to show that his vended
land and the land standing in the name of his elder brother be taken
together belonging to the joint family property, but at the same time
he has executed a gift deed in favour of the appellant no.2 which
could not have been done by appellant no.1 in respect of a joint family
property.
We have considered the rival submissions at the bar.
The submissions of learned counsel representing the private
respondents have got force and are acceptable. The learned Single
Judge has dealt with the submissions of the parties elaborately and has
relied upon the judicial pronouncements as well in the case of
Dinanath Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001(2)
B.L.J. 560. In that case also the purchaser had gifted the land in
dispute to his sister and a same kind of plea was taken to defeat the
claim of pre-emptor. The views taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court
have been duly quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order. We are not reiterating those quotations with an intention not to
burden our judgment once again with those paragraphs which are
already existing in the order of the learned Single Judge.
We agree with the views taken by the trial court,
revisional court, Bihar Land Tribunal as well as the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.
Appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.