In 1951, Mool Chand died and his estate was mutated in favour of his widow and two sons, one of whom was Mitter Sen and in whose share the above land fell.
The appellants sought pre emption of the sale in its entirety.
The tenancy however was number affected.
Be that as it may, the cultivation of the land by Ratna, father of the appellant companytinued till his death, whereafter the appellants were substituted as tenants by inheritance.
Following are the facts as gathered from one or the other judgments of the three companyrts below.
The appellants remained unaffected by these transfers.
In the sale, a provision was made in letting the vendees keep the sum due for redeeming the existing mortgage.
Mutation for the subsequent mortgage dated 6 5 1966 was sanctioned on 21 7 1966.
and whether an agricultural tenant holding under tenancy of the vendor a part of the sold land is entitled to pre empt the entire sale?
As per revenue records adduced in evidence before the learned trial Judge, the land stood tenanted even prior to the year 1946 and was so in the year 1950 with one Net Ram Gosain.
1548 in that regard was sanctioned and recorded in the revenue papers.
The records are silent however as to whether Ratna was inducted as a tenant by Mitter Sen, owner of the land or Amin Chand, mortgagee.
The appellants as well as the respondents filed cross appeals before the District Judge, Hissar who allowed the appeal of the pre emptorappellants granting them a pre emption decree and dismissed the appeal of the respondents regarding the other part, in which the appellants had been successful qua one khasra number before the trial Judge.
Mitter Sen mortgaged six khasra numbers barring 294/9 9 12 , from his inherited land on 16 12 1951 in favour of Amin Chand for Rs 2400 and Mutation No.
While so, Mitter Sen, owner mortgagor on 6 5 1966 re mortgaged the disputed land with possession to the same Amin Chand for Rs 1500 by a Registered Mortgage Deed.
Revenue records of intervening years kept showing the appellants or their father, as the case may be, sometimes as tenants under the owner, Mitter Sen and sometimes under Amin Chand, the mortgagee.
The trial companyrt granted them a decree for pre emption in respect of the numbermortgaged Khasra No.
Fifteen days later, on 21 5 1966, he redeemed the former mortgage of 16 12 1951.
294/9 9 kanals and 12 marlas only on the payment of proportionate price of Rs 2122.30 paise and dismissed the suit with regard to the mortgaged land, number in dispute.
Some land including 50 kanals 6 marlas of land in Khasra Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. PUNCHHI, J. This appeal, directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1 2 1983, passed in Regular Second Appeal No.
At the time of the crop inspection of Kharif 1953, done on maturity of crops between October to December as per departmental instructions, Ratna Ram, the father of the present appellants herein, was found to be the tenant of the mortgaged as also number mortgaged land of Mitter Sen on payment of one third produce, and was recorded as such.
Under the tenancy laws, as applicable to Haryana, the agricultural year companymences from 15th June, whereafter time arrives to sow the Kharif crop.
On 4 3 1968, Mitter Sen sold the entire 50 kanals 6 marlas of land for a total companysideration of Rs 10,000 to the respondents.
294/9 9 12 , 1 6 16 , 2 3 2 , 10 7 8 , 12 8 0 and 13 8 0 situated in Village Bhattukalan, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar was owned by one Mool Chand.
1611 of 1973, raises two questions of importance, on the true interpretation of clause Fourthly in Section 15 1 a of the Punjab Pre emption Act, 1913 as applicable to the State of Haryana, being whether an agricultural tenant inducted by the usufructuary mortgagee, has a right of pre emption over the sale made by the mortgagor vendor?
