ROSHANBEG SINGH Vs. HARMITTER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 26, 1969, of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, modifying that of the Subordinate Judge, Karnal, dated February 3, 1969. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-

(2.) Mr. U.D. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the appellate Court has gone wrong in reversing the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 9. His second contention is that the decree passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in favour of the pre-emptor is a nullity and invalid and thus non-existent as no decree can be passed against the vendees who were tenants at the time of sale under Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and also under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

(3.) No one has appeared on behalf of vendor-respondent No. 2. Mr. D.S. Nehra, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1, has raised preliminary objection. So far as second contention of Shri Gaur is concerned, his objection is that since the vendee-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had not filed an appeal either against the judgment and decree of the trial Court or of the first appellate Court, it cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. As regards first contention, Shri Nehra's objection is that it is a question of fact, which has been gone into minutely by the first appellate Court, and this Court, in second appeal, cannot reverse that finding.