Dua, J. - (1.) THIS appeal was directed by the learned Single Judge admitting it at the motion stage to be heard by a Division Bench because the point involved was considered likely to arise frequently. It is for this reason that it has been placed before us for disposal. The point raised has also since been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Jang Singh v. Hardayal Singh, (1962) 64 P.L.R. 1152:, I.L.R.(1983)P&H 97:, 1962 Ct. L.J. 512. The point involved is short but it is desirable to state the facts giving rise to the present litigation.
(2.) HARDIAL Singh alias Dial Singh, Tara Singh and Charan Singh sold their agricultural land along with the shamilat and other rights in May, 1958 to the five Defendants Gurbachan Singh, Bawa Singh, Darshan Singh, Hari Singh and Lakha Singh sons of Bela Singh for an ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 3000/ -. Mohinder Singh son of Dial Singh vendor instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to pre -empt the said sale. According to him the sale consideration actually paid was Rs. 1,900/ - only which also represents the market price of the suit land. The amount over and above Rs. 1,900/ - is stated to be fictitious . This suit was resisted by the vendees and the trial Court holding the sale to be indivisible and Hari Singh Defendant having been proved to be a tenant of a major portion of the suit land held the sale transaction in its entirety to be exempt from pre -emption by virtue of Section 17 -A of he Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act No. 10 of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). The suit was on this ground dismissed. On appeal the learned Additional District - Judge, however, took a different view and holding Section 17 -A of the Act to have been intended to protect the sale of land comprising the tenancy of Hari Singh to him reversed the decision of the Court of first instance and decreed the pre -emptor's suit in respect of the land sold except one -fifth of 32 kanals and 7 marlas which had been found to be with Hari Singh on lease. The one -fifth share was arrived at because the five vendees were stated to have purchased the land in equal shares. It was, however, made clear that the pre -emptor could not claim any corresponding reduction in the sale price and that he was bound to pay full sale price before be could succeed in claiming pre -emption of any part of the land sold. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.
(3.) ON second appeal Shri Shamair Chand, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, has contended that Section 17 -A of the Act protects sale of land comprising the tenancy of a tenant made to him by the landowner and that, therefore, the sale in question must be held not to be pre -emptible under the Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1913 and that the Court below has erred in law in decreeing the present suit. In the alternative he has contended that in any case the entire area of 32 kanals and 7 marlas should have been held to be exempt from the claim of pre -emption under the Punjab Pre -emption Act, this being the area admittedly comprising the tenancy of Hari Singh.;