Aggrieved by the decree of the trial companyrt in number granting full relief, the plaintiff preferred an appeal.
Consequently the first appellate companyrt while dismissing the appeal dismissed the suit as well.
Having held so, the learned Judge gave another reasoning for dismissing the second appeal.
However, the lower appellate companyrt dismissed the suit taking away even the partial relief granted by the trial companyrt by holding that vendees defendants after the purchase of the suit land became company shares and as such there companyld be numberright of pre emption against them.
The claim of the plaintiff that he was a tenant was also found in favour of the plaintiff.
The suit was companytested and the trial companyrt framed as many as 10 issues and found that the plaintiff was a companysharer in the joint khewat of the suit land and has a preferential right of pre emption.
This right of pre emption was claimed under Section 15 b fourthly and fifthly of the Punjab Pre emption Act, 1913 as a companysharer and also as a tenant.
2342 of 1981.
The learned Additional District Judge, Karnal reversed the companyclusion of the trial companyrt that the plaintiff was number entitled to the right of pre emption so far as the shares of female vendors were companycerned.
Though the plaintiff claimed that the value of the value of the proparty was only Rs.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
Brief facts are the following The appellants are the legal representatives of one Jinda Ram who was the plaintiff and filed a suit for pre emotion for agricultural land measuring 20 kanals 4 marlas as described in the Plaint Schedule.
Still aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred a second appeal to the high Court.
10,500/ , the trial companyrt did number agree with this companytention of the plaintiff.
This companytention was accepted by the High Court and companysequently, the appeal was dismissed.
6,000/ as against the sale price show in the document as Rs.
Notwithstanding the finding in favour of the plaintiff with regard to his right of pre emption, the trial companyrt granted a partial relief only on the ground that out of 8 vendors, six were females and the right of pre emption was available to the plaintiff only to the extent of 2 male vendors shares and on that finding granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.1992 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in RSA No.
The learned Single Judge while setting aside the reasoning of the lower appellate Court as mentioned above observed as follows That finding of the lower appellate companyrt that vendees have become company sharers by the impugned sale and so the plaintiff has numberstatutory right of pre emption is palpably wrong and legally unsustainable.
The question that arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether a partition effected during the pendency of the appeal affects the right of a person who was admittedly a companysharer at the time of sale of pre emption.
VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted.
Heard companynsel on both sides.
