- (1.)This is appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated February 16, 1966.
(2.)D.B. Sham Lal sold land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas on his own behalf as well as on behalf of his brothers for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of five sons of Bakhtawar Singh. This sale was pre-empted by Jagdish son of the vendor claiming to have a preferential right. It was maintained that the vendees were complete strangers. The vendees on the other hand took the stand that they were merely benamidars and the real vendee was their father. It was urged that in the circumstances, their father was a necessary party and should be impleaded. Later on, Bakhtawar Singh made an application for being impleaded. This application was dismissed at the time, when the suit was decreed. The suit was contested by the vendees and on the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed :-
(1) Has the plaintiff a pre-emptive right of pre-emption qua the vendees ?

(2) Are the vendees the real purchasers, and if so, its effect ?

(3.)The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had a pre-emptive right, his right being superior to that of the vendees. The trial Court also found that the vendees were merely benamidars for Bakhtawar Singh. But, in spite of this it was ruled that the suit could be filed against the benamidars in view of Maghi V. Narain and others, 6 Punjab Record 1914, Mansur Ali and another V. Sultan and others, 1927 AIR(Oudh) 509and Sukhram Dubey V. Lal Partap Singh and others, 1945 AIR(All) 343Against this decision, an appeal was taken to the Senior Subordinate Judge. He affirmed the decision of the trial Court. A second appeal was then preferred to this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeal on the short ground that the cases relied upon by the Courts below did not apply and the correct rule was laid down in Sankatha Prasad V. Mt. Rukmani and others, 1939 AIR(All) 81Sankatha Prasad V. Mt. Rukmani and others, 1940 AIR(All) 97and Mt. Ram Sakhi Kaur V. Lachmi Narian Lal, 1924 AIR(All) 802The learned single Judge also held that Bakhtawar Singh was a tenant of the land, which was the subject-matter of the pre-emption suit and in view of the provisions of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the suit for pre-emption could not be decreed, the sale being to a tenant. The pre-emptor being dissatisfied has come up with the leave of the learned single Judge in appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.