Smt. Ganga Rani vs Piara Singh and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff''s suit.

The controversy giving rise to the present second appeal has arisen in the following circumstances : Roshan Dass sold the suit land for Rs. 14,000/- to Chur Singh, Sucha Singh and Tirlok Singh on the 13th of June, 1956. Mst. Ganga Rani pre-empted the sale successfully and obtained a decree for possession by pre-emption in her favour on the 20th of June, 1958. When she sought to take actual physical possession of the land she was resisted by Piara Singh. An application was made by the decree-holder under Order 21, rule 97 of the CPC complaining of the obstruction. After enquiry the court rejected the application under Order 21, rule 99. To challenge this order the present suit was filed by Piara Singh under Order 21, rule 103, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Piara Singh took up two positions in his plaint; one that he was a tenant of the vendor and in the alternative he pleaded that even if he was not a tenant of the vendor, he was a tenant of the vendee and as such could not be dispossessed. Both the courts below have come to a concurrent decision that Piara Singh is a tenant of the vendee and, therefore, he could not be dispossessed and the plaintiffs would only be entitled to symbolical possession of the lard under Order 21, rule 36, and not actual physical possession though, of course, Piara Singh will have to attorn to the pre emptor as a tenant.

The short question that requires determination is at what stage does the title to the pre-empted property pass to the pre-emptor. If the title passes on to the pre-emptor on the date of the original sale, then of course, Piara Singh cannot succeed but if the title passes to the pre-emptor at the time when the pre-emption money is deposited and before that deposit Piara Singh had come on the land as a tenant, Piara Singh is bound to succeed. So far as the question as to when the title to the pre-empted property passes to the pre-emptor, the matter has been settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ganga Rum v. Shiv Lal AIR 1964 P&H. 260. It has been held in this decision that the title in the pre-empted property passes to the pre-emptor when the pre-emption money is deposited in court. In the present case, Piara Singh had come on the land long before the pre-emption money was deposited in the court. That being so, the order of the courts below is correct and no fault can be found in it.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.