RAM KRISHNA V. DAYANAND THROUGH LRS & ORS.

INTRODUCTION 

The present appeals challenge the High Court’s common judgment of 31.08.2018 in R.S.A. No. 2241 of 1991 (“Ram Kishan and another v. Daya Nand and others”) and R.S.A. No. 2242 of 1991 (“Siri Bhagwan and others v. Daya Nand and others”). The High Court upheld the first appellate court’s decision, which decreed the pre-emption suit filed by the plaintiffs, Daya Nand (deceased) and others. The defendants, purchasers Ram Kishan and another, and Siri Bhagwan and others, now appeal.

The impugned judgment relies on the erroneous  legal position that co-sharer status ceases only after final partition under Section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. In “Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Others v. Jagtar Singh,” this Court clarified two legal propositions:

1. The right of pre-emption requires the pre-emptor to possess the right on the date of sale and on the date of the court’s first-instance decree, citing the Constitution Bench decision in “Shyam Sunder and Others v. Ram Kumar and Another.”

  2. Joint status ends when an order for property division under Section 118 of the Revenue Act is issued. The analogy is drawn from the Code of Civil Procedure, where the preliminary decree of partition decides shares and entitlements. The date of the Section 118 order is the date of partition; subsequent actions under Section 121 are follow-ups, not the actual date of partition.

 FACTS 

(i) On 26.10.1988, respondent no. 5 – Rajinder, a co-owner, executed a sale deed in favor of appellant no. 1 – Ram Kishan and appellant no. 2 – Jit Singh, as detailed in SLP (C) 30335/2018.

(ii) On 29.11.1988, another sale deed was executed by Rajinder in favor of appellant no. 1 – Siri Bhagwan, appellant no. 2 – Sunil, and appellant no. 3 – Anil, the parties involved in SLP (C) 31904/2018.

(iii) On 16.01.1989, an order under Section 118 of the Revenue Act, Naksha Bey, was issued.

(iv) The trial court dismissed the pre-emption suit on 31.10.1990.

(v) However, on 03.10.1991, the first appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the preemption suit.

(vi) The High Court, in its judgment dated 31.08.2018, upheld the decision of the first appellate court.

 JUDGEMENT 

The suits were dismissed by the trial court on 31.10.1990, while the order under Section 118 of the Revenue Act, Naksha Bey, had been passed and prepared on 16.01.1989. The first appellate court decreed the prayer for pre-emption on 03.10.1991. Subsequently, on 27.03.1992, an order under Section 121 of the Revenue Act (Naksha Zeem) was passed, and the deed of partition was registered.

Given these facts, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. Suit No. 7/1989 (“Daya Nand and Others v. Siri Bhagwan and Others”) and Suit No. 8/1989 (“Daya Nand and Others v. Ram Krishan and Others”) filed before the Sub-Judge, Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, Haryana, will be treated as dismissed. Any deposited amount by the respondent(s) can be withdrawn, along with accrued interest, if any. No costs are ordered. The appeals are allowed as per the mentioned terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

REFERENCES 

1. SCC Online 
2. https://indiankanoon.org

Written by Ratna Singh an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin