- (1.) THE question for the consideration of this Full Bench may be stated thus:--"whether a vendee who has joined with him a stranger in purchasing agricultural land or immovable property can by acquiring the interest of the stranger co-vendee by gift or sale successfully resist a suit for preemption in view of the provisions of Section 21-A of the Punjab Preemption act, 1913?"
(2.) IT has arisen in the following manner:--Gharib Singh, Harnam Singh, Partap Singh and Kartar Singh, four sons of Kishna, jointly held 225 Kanals 9 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Kiampur. Kartar Singh having died, his son Harchand Singh sold his 1/4 th share to his uncle Graham Singh and his wife Shrimati gurnam Kaur by a registered sale deed, dated 15th March, 1966 (Exhibit d. A.) for Rs. 4000/ -. On 15th March, 1967, Harnam Singh, a brother of gharib Singh vendee, brought suit for pre-emption on the plea that he was a cosharer and also near collateral of the vendor Harchand Singh. During the pendency of the suit, on 10th June, 1968, Shrimati Gurnam kaur made a gift of her share of the land which she had jointly purchased with her husband to her co-vendee Gharib Singh. Taking advantage of this gift in his favour Gharib Singh resisted the suit for preemption inter alia on the plea that as a result of the gift in his favour, his wife Shrimati Gurnam Kaur (who was a stranger) had ceased to have any interest in the property and his own right being equal to that of the pre-emptor, the suit must fail. This contention prevailed with the learned trial Judge, and after dealing with other issues arising in the case, he dismissed the suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, however took a different view about the effect of acquisition of his wife's interest by Gharib Singh and holding that this did not operate to restore him to his original position, he decreed the plaintiff's claim.
(3.) IN the second appeal preferred by Gharib Singh, the only point debated before a learned Single Judge of this Court related to the effect of this gift made in favour of Gharib Singh by his wife. The learned Single Judge relying on an unreported decision of S. R. Das, C. J. in S. A. No. 382 of 1948, D/- 29-6-49 (Punj), which was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1949, Tej Ram v. Puran, decided on 16-4-1951 (Punj), held that acquisition by Gharib Singh of the share of his wife under the gift amounted to improvement of his status in view of the provisions of section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Gharib Singh could not benefit by the same. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge that has given rise to this Letters Patent Appeal.;