Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of a suit for possession by pre -emption of a vacant plot of land measuring 2 marlas and 1 sarsahi situated in the abadi of village Dhamain, Police Station, Mukerian, Tehsil Dasuya in District Hoshiarpur on payment of Rs. 35/ -.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the controversy between the parties are as follows: Adjoining the house of Gluwant Singh, defendant, there was a plot of land which was claimed to be the: property of Gulwant Singh. Piare Lai claimed the possession of the same on the basis that it was allotted to his wife Urmila Devi by the Custodian, being the evacuee property. The dispute between the parties led to the proceedings before the police. On 21st of April, 1963 vide copy Exhibit D.A., the parties entered into compromise through the instrumentality of the Panchayat. The relevant terms were as follows: One -half of the taur in dispute less 2 hath towards the west will be transferred in favour of the other party (Gulwant Singh) by Piare Lal from his wife for a sum of Rs. 25/ - within the period of two weeks. The cost of the registration will become by the purchaser. After the sale -deed has been executed, the other party (Gulwant Singh) will vacate and hand over the possession of the remaining portion to Piare Lal.
(3.) Apparently, in pursuance of this compromise, on 6th of May, 1963, the sale -deed was executed by Urmila Devi, wife of Piare Lal, transferring the taur now in dispute to Gulwant Singh for a some of Rs. 35/ -, Rs. 10/ - being towards the cost of registration etc. Some months thereafter, that is, on 6th of May, 1964. the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed by the minor son of Piare Lal for possession by preemption. The suit was resisted and the status of the plaintiff as the son of the vendor was also challenged. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was only a benami pre -emptor. Number of issues were settled, but the main issue in the case was, however, whether the transaction in dispute was not a sale and was not pre -emptible. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the sale was effected as a result of the compromise settling the dispute between the parties. This is what the lower Appellant Court says: The sale transaction was, therefore, the result of settlement of the dispute between Piare Lal on one side and the defendants appellants on the other. The transaction, however, cannot be described anything other than sale.;