Prabhu Dayal Vs. Bahadur and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Civil;Limitation |
| Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Sep-22-1992 |
| R.S.A. No. 71 of 1978 and C.M. Nos. 2326, 2327, 2328-CII of 1992 |
| S.S. Sodhi, Acting C.J.,; M.R. Agnihotri,; S.S. Grewal,; G.C. Garg and; H |
| (1992)102PLR758 |
| Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 22, Rule 4; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 |
| Prabhu Dayal |
| Bahadur and ors. |
| Chandra Singh, Adv. |
| Hari Mittal and; Parmodh Mittal, Advs. |
| Bhartu v. Ram Sarup
|
.....constitutional validity of section 14 of hindu succession act. thus there is no real conflict between the two full bench judgments. both the full bench judgments have been delivered on the assumption that joginder singhs case dealt with question of alienation whereas pritam singhs case had decided the question concerning succession. even on fact in joginder singhs case the issue was validity of alienation by consent decree by a father to his two sons, which was challenged by third son, whereas in pritam singhs case the question of nature of property in hands of sons on death of their father had arisen for purposes of assessment of estate duty. in pritam singhs case the property in the hands of the sons was held to be coparcenary property and only 1/3rd of property belonging to deceased father was considered eligible for estate duty. therefore, there was no question of alienation in pritam singhs case. - having failed in appeal as well, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal......a co sharer in the other rectangles. having failed in appeal as well, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.2. both the courts below have not noticed this fact, as is evident from exhibit p-4, that appellant prabhu dyal also purchased the specific khasra numbers in khatuni no. 706 of the said khewat number 558/531. according to the full bench decision in lachhman singh's case (supra), prabhu dayal would not become a co sharer in the khewat by purchasing specific khasra numbers. however, the ratio of this decision runs counter to the ratio of full bench decision in bhartu v. ram sarup, 1981 p. l. j. 204. although the point involved in the two cases was slightly different but according to the ratio of the full bench, prabhu dayal would become co-sharer in the khewat even if he had purchased specific khasra numbers out of that khewat. there is, therefore direct conflict between the ratio of the said two full bench decisions of this court which needs to be resolved. this case, therefore, may be laid before my lord the chief justice for referring the matter to a larger bench for settling the conflict between the two full bench decisions noticed above.
S.P. Goyal, J. (16th July 1986)
1. Siria, respondent No. 6, sold agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals comprised of Killa No, 19 Rectangle No. 148 out of Khewat No. 558/531, Khatuni No. 706/666 for a mm of Rs. 5,500/- to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 vide registered sale deed dated June 1, 1974. The appellant filed this suit for possession of the said land by way of pre-emption alleging that he was the co-sharer in the Moti Patti Shamlat and as such had a superior right as opposed to the vendees The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand, (1970) 72 P. L. R. 341, wherein it was held that the purchaser of a share of specified kilia numbers in specified rectangles will not succeed in obtaining a decree by way of pre emption when a specified share in another rectangle is sold subsequently in which rectangle the original purchaser has no right because he does not become a co sharer in the other rectangles. Having failed in appeal as well, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.
2. Both the courts below have not noticed this fact, as is evident from Exhibit P-4, that appellant Prabhu Dyal also purchased the specific Khasra Numbers in Khatuni No. 706 of the said Khewat Number 558/531. According to the Full Bench decision in Lachhman Singh's case (supra), Prabhu Dayal would not become a co sharer in the Khewat by purchasing specific khasra numbers. However, the ratio of this decision runs counter to the ratio of Full Bench decision in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 P. L. J. 204. Although the point involved in the two cases was slightly different but according to the ratio of the Full Bench, Prabhu Dayal would become Co-sharer in the Khewat even if he had purchased specific Khasra Numbers out of that Khewat. There is, therefore direct conflict between the ratio of the said two Full Bench decisions of this Court which needs to be resolved. This case, therefore, may be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for referring the matter to a Larger Bench for settling the conflict between the two Full Bench decisions noticed above.