- (1.) This second appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit instituted on 15.3.1967 by Harnam Singh, plaintiff-pre-emptor, whereby he sought to pre-empt the sale of the land in dispute effected on 15.3.1966 and jointly made in favour of Garib Singh and his wife Smt. Gurnam Kaur, by harchand Singh vendor of his one-fourth share in the joint Khewat.
(2.) The plaintiff-pre-emptor claimed superior right of pre-emption on the basis of his being a co-sharer of the vendor. It was alleged that though Garib Singh, one of the vendees, also enjoyed, before the sale in question, a right of pre-emption equal to that of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, but he lost that right by joining a stranger with him while making a joint purchase of the land in dispute and by doing so, he himself sank to the status of the stranger whom he joined with him in effecting the said purchase. Gurnam Kaur, one of the vendees, tried to remedy the aforesaid infirmity in Garib Singh's status qua the plaintiff-pre-emptor by making a gift on 10.6.1968 of her three-fourth share of the land jointly purchased by the two.
(3.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the action of Gurnam Kaur in gifting her share of the Purchase of the land in question to Garib Singh affects an improvement in the status of Garib Singh vendee-appellant in terms of Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (Act 1 of 1913), hereinafter called the Act. The trial Court sought the answer to this question in the Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Hart Singh V. Damodar and others,1966 PunLR 45, wherein it was held that - "A tenant who is losing his right of resistance to a suit for pre-emption, as provided under Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, simply because of the existence of a stranger, can be restored to his right if he gets rid of the stranger before the passing of a final decree in the pre-emption suit instituted against the vendees. No improvement takes place within the meaning of Section 21-A of the Pre-emption Act, in the status of the tenant by his purchasing the interest of the stranger in the property, because he was a tenant to begin with and he continued to be tenant thereafter. By removing the defect in his right of resistance which had crept in by joining with him a stranger, he was restored to his original position of a tenant with all the corresponding privileges." Following the abovesaid ruling the trial Court gave the answer to the above question in the negative and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court on an appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the ruling given in the Single Bench decision of this Court in Hari Singh's case was not applicable to the facts of the present case and answered the aforesaid question in the affirmative and decreed the suit. Hence, the present second appeal at the instance of the vendee-defendant.;