Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a second appeal arising from a suit for perpetual injunction. The dispute concerned agricultural land originally owned by Dalip Kaur, who sold it to Smt. Jeth Kanwar on 14 April 1967. Zail Singh filed a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree on 9 October 1969, after which he sought to interfere with the possession of the appellant, Sanwat Singh. The appellant claimed to be a tenant in possession since before 1957 and filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain Zail Singh and others from dispossessing him. The trial court found that the appellant was a tenant prior to 1957 and granted a decree of perpetual injunction. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the appellant had come into possession in 1968 after the sale, and that as Dalip Kaur had pre-empted the property sold by her mother, the tenancy right created by Jeet Singh in favour of the appellant did not bind the pre-emptor. The High Court affirmed the appellate court in second appeal, relying on the Full Bench decision in Hukam Singh v. Hakumat Rai [(1967) PLR 743]. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that even accepting the appellate court's finding, the appellate court's conclusions were legally unsustainable and that the Full Bench propositions supported the trial court's decree. The respondents did not appear. The Supreme Court considered the Full Bench propositions, particularly that the title of a pre-emptor accrues only from the date of payment of purchase money and costs under Order XX Rule 14 CPC; that the pre-emptor is entitled to delivery of possession from the vendee including any person possessing through the vendee after the original sale; and that a tenant inducted by a vendee after sale does not become the tenant of the pre-emptor because the vendee is not the predecessor-in-interest. The Court reasoned that because the pre-emptor's title accrues only upon deposit, any tenancy rights created by the predecessor vendor or vendee bind the pre-emptor. The Court referred to the definition of tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and to Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which bars ejectment of a tenant except on specified grounds. It held that a tenant in possession under the vendor is not liable to ejectment except in accordance with Section 9, and that unless appropriate proceedings are taken and an order passed, the tenant is entitled to resist unlawful interference. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the appellate court and restored the trial court's decree, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pre-emption - Order XX Rule 14 CPC - Title of pre-emptor accrues only upon deposit of purchase money and costs; tenant inducted by vendee after sale does not become tenant of pre-emptor as vendee not predecessor-in-interest - Pre-emptor's right to possession is subject to protection of lawful tenant under tenancy laws - Held appellate court and High Court erred by reversing trial court's perpetual injunction. B) Tenancy Law - Ejectment of Tenant - Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Section 9 - Statutory bar on ejectment except specified grounds - Tenant in possession under vendor is protected from unlawful interference; no finding of any ground under Section 9; hence injunction restored. C) Tenancy Definition - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - Tenant defined as person holding land under another and liable to pay rent; tenant holding under vendor is tenant within meaning of Act - Court applied definition to uphold possession rights.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court and High Court erred in reversing the trial court's perpetual injunction by holding that a tenant inducted by the vendee after sale is not protected against the pre-emptor, and whether protection under Section 9 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 applies.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of High Court and appellate court set aside; trial court decree restored; no costs.
Law Points
- Pre-emptor's title accrues only on deposit under Order XX Rule 14 CPC
- Tenant inducted by vendee not tenant of pre-emptor as vendee not predecessor-in-interest
- Section 9 Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act bars ejectment except specified grounds
- Tenant under Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 includes holder from vendor
