BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. KASHMIR SINGH
LAWS(P&H)-1971-2-53
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 16,1971

BHAGWAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
KASHMIR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The only question involved in this second appeal is whether the suit was for partial pre-emption. The trial Court dismissed the same holding it to be so. The learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, reversed that finding and also allowed amendment in the plaint so as to include the entire property, which was the subject-matter of sale. The suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 11,247/- to the vendees, Rs. 1,247/- being the expenses spent by them on stamp and registration of the sale-deed.
(2.) On 15th June, 1964, Gurmukh Singh sold agricultural land, measuring 39 Kanals 5 Marlas, situate in village Nag Khurd, District Amritsar, to Bhagwan Singh and his two brothers Asa Singh and Mehar Singh for Rs. 10,000/-. On 11th June, 1965, Kashmir Singh, son of the vendor, filed a suit for pre-emption. In the heading of the plaint, he stated - "Suit for possession by pre-emption of 39 Kanals 5 Marlas of land and tube-well bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 518/511, 611/667, 738/708, 185/216, No. Khasra 55/17(8-0), 24/2(7-12), 25(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(7-8), 63/26-min(0-5) situated in village Nag Tehsil and District Amritsar as entered in the Jamabandi of 1961-62 on payment of Rs. 7445/- with all rights in and over land, dorment or subservient more especially right to water, Mahal Ahata Chah, Machine Tube-well along with fitting and every other imaginable right pertaining to the land, on payment of the market value of the land as determined by the Court."
(3.) The objection raised by the vendees in the written statement was only this that the suit was for partial pre-emption and liable to be dismissed on that score alone. It was not however, stated as to how it was so. While giving evidence as D.W. 5, one of the vendees Bhagwan Singh did not say anything with regard to this objection in examination-in-chief, but in cross-examination by the pre-emptor all that he stated was : "I purchased 39 Kanals 5 Marlas including well and electric pump vide Exhibit D. 2 (sale-deed). We had purchased share of electric tubewell at the rate of 16 hours out of 8 days. This was the share of water attached with the land. We purchased all the rights attached to the land. I cannot orally tell those rights. I purchased 39 Kanals and 5 Marlas only and no other land.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.