9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court decreeing suit of plaintiff-preemptor for agricultural land on payment of Rs. 2,000; Validity of plaintiff's right of pre-emption as a tenant; Interpretation of Punjab pre-emption Act regarding sale of agricultural land by a female and its impact on pre-emptive rights. Analysis: 1. The defendant-vendee challenged the lower appellate Court's judgment decreeing the plaintiff-preemptor's suit for agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed pre-emption as a tenant, which was contested by the defendant. The trial Judge dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to establish his right of pre-emption as a tenant. The lower appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, emphasizing his status as a tenant-at-will at the time of sale, supported by documentary evidence. 2. The main issue raised before the lower appellate Court was the plaintiff's right of pre-emption as a tenant. The Court found in favor of the plaintiff, considering the evidence presented, including revenue records and the vendor's admission of not being in possession at the time of sale. The Court admitted additional evidence to clarify doubts, following the provisions of O. 41, R. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The appellant contended that the Punjab pre-emption Act restricted pre-emptive rights for agricultural land sold by a female. The argument focused on sub-section (2) of S. 15 of the Act, which outlines specific scenarios where pre-emption rights vest in certain relatives. The Court noted that this point was not raised earlier and could not be introduced in second appeal. The Court emphasized that the Act does not exclude the pre-emptive right for land sold by a female who is the absolute owner. 4. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and concluded that the plaintiff's right to pre-empt as a tenant was valid. The lower appellate Court's decision to admit additional evidence was justified, as it aimed to clarify crucial aspects of the case and ensure a proper decision. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate Court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the plaintiff's right of pre-emption as a tenant and emphasized the importance of following procedural rules when admitting additional evidence. The interpretation of the Punjab pre-emption Act regarding sales by females was clarified, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to pre-empt the agricultural land in question.
|
