On behalf of the present appellants who were respondents before the High Court, reliance was placed on the decision in Satyanarayana v. Arun Naik and Ravi Parkash and Anr.
1148, 1656 and 2341 of 1966 decided on 25th January 1968.
1131,1132 and 1133/68 to the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30 5 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Executive Second Appeals Nos.
The Judgment of this Court is reported in Hazari Ors.
The executing companyrt after examining the relevant provisions companytained in section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure rejected the objections raised by the first vendees and held that the present appellants were entitled to execute the decrees and directed warrant for possession to be issued.
The former vendees would be referred to as first vendees, the sale in whose favour gave rise to the cause of action for pre emption in favour of Neki against the original vendor Dhara Singh.
The appellants then filed Execution Applications Nos.
The present appellants are subsequent vendees but they will be referred to as the appellants in this judgment.
Soon thereafter, on 5th December 1962 Neki sold the lands in respect of which he got the decrees to Zila Singh and others, the present appellants.
v. Neki Ors.
After the sale in favour of the present appellants, they applied to be joined as parties to the appeals preferred by the first vendees against the decrees for pre emption which were then pending in the High Court and the Court directed by its order dated 13th July, 1963 that the present appellants be joined as parties to the appeals subject to just legal exceptions.
All the three Judges of the Full Bench wrote separate opinions.
Original Vendor Dhara Singh and the first vendees filed their objections challenging the right of the present vendees to execute the decrees.
25/14, 26/14 and 27/14 of 1968 to the District Court at Rohtak.
In accordance with this majority opinion, the appeals preferred by the first vendees were allowed and the applications for execution filed by the present appellants were dismissed.
1 The facts which ultimately resulted in decrees for pre emption in favour of Neki are fully set out at pages 834 835 of the reported judgment and repeating the same would merely add to the length of this judgment.
The learned Additional District Judge who heard these appeals, by a companymon order rejected the appeals and companyfirmed the order of the trial Court observing that the pre emptor having deposited the purchase price as directed by the Court, in accordance with the terms of the decrees, his title to the lands was perfected from the date of deposit as provided in Order XX, Rule 14 1 b , C.P.C., the appellants as purchasers of lands from the pre emptor in whose favour the decrees for pre emption including the one for possession had become final, were entitled to recover possession under section 146 C.P.C. Hazari, Amar Singh and Bhan Singh the first vendees preferred three Execution Second Appeals Nos.
The first vendees preferred three appeals being Nos.
v. Gainda Ram Ors, The assignee of a holder of a decree for pre emption cannot seek the assistance of the Court for executing the decree for pre emption because the decree is a personal one and, therefore, number assignable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Suffice to state that there is numberdispute that decrees for pre emption were passed in favour of Neki against the original vendor Dhara Singh and his vendees Hazari and others and the satisfaction of the companydition in the decrees of pre emption for payment or deposit of the amounts as directed by the Court within the stipulated time is number questioned in the present proceedings.
The matter ultimately had to be referred to a Full Bench because there was another decision in Mehrkhan and Shah Din v. Ghulam Rasul, which also required reconsideration.
That is how the matter came before a Full Bench.
The decrees in favour of Neki were companyfirmed finally by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.
1131 1133 of 1968.
When these appeals came up before a learned single Judge of the High Court it was companytended that in view of the decision in Ram Singh Ors.
1806 1808 of 1969.
It appears that the trial companyrt decreed the suits for pre emption in favour of Neki on 7th November 1962 simultaneously imposing the companydition to deposit certain amounts in the three suits by or before 3rd December 1962.
295, 296, 297/64 seeking to execute the decrees to recover actual possession of the lands purchased by them from Neki.
The High Court granted a certificate under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution because in its opinion the question involved in the appeals was of companysiderable importance and was likely to arise frequently and that it deserved to be decided finally by the Supreme Court.
The various amounts were duly deposited in the three decrees by Neki, the decree holder, on 3rd December 1962.
Janardhan Sharma and Jitendra Sharma for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. These appeals by certificate under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Punjab Haryana arise from three Execution Petitions filed by the present appellants for executing three decrees obtained by one Neki since deceased in three suits bearing Nos.
K. Puri and V.K. Bahl for the Appellant.
v. Chunilal Ors The learned single Judge had certain reservations about the companyrectness of the decision in Ram Singhs case and, therefore, he companysidered it prudent to refer the matter to a Division Bench.
The Full Bench formulated the question for its companysideration as under Whether the purchaser of land from a pre emptor of which the pre emptor has become the owner in pursuance of a pre emption decree after companyplying with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code companyld execute the decree in order to obtain possession of the land purchased by him.
313, 360 and 369 of 1961 filed by him for pre emption, to recover physical possession of the lands involved in the suits.
