Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Hukum Singh Nadir Singh vs Hakumat Rai Nihal Chand on 23 May, 1967Matching Fragments
1. Whether the suit is maintainable?
2. Whether the plaintiff is not liable to be ejected in execution of the pre-emption decree of the defendant against Om Parkash vendee?
3. Relief.
With the consent of the counsel for the parties the first issue was treated as preliminary and, after hearing arguments on the same, the trial court dismissed the suit of the tenant by judgment dated June 12, 1964, on the ground that the pre-emptor was not bound by the tenancy created by the vendee after the sale in his favour The tenant's first appeal against the decree of the trial court having been dismissed on September 14, 1964, by the District Judge, Ferozepore, he came up in second appeal to this Court. In pursuance of the order of Dua, J., dated November 11, 1965, referring the case to a larger Bench, this appeal came up before the said learned Judge and myself on March 23, 1966, and we directed it to be referred to a still larger Bench in view of the importance of the legal question involved in the case. This is how the appeal has come to be argued before the present Bench
22. In Smt Ganga Rani v. Piara Singh, 1966-68 Pun LR 693, it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that a tenant, who had been brought on the land by the vendee long before the pre-emption money was paid, cannot be ejected in the execution of the pre-emption decree and the pre-emptor is entitled to only symbolical possession because title to the pre-empted property passes to the pre-emptor when the pre-emption money is deposited in Court. The learned Single Judge is no doubt, correct in holding thai title to the pre-emption money passed only if, when and after the pre-emption money is deposited in Court. With the greatest respect to the learned Judge, however, it appears that in such an eventuality what passes to the pre-emptor is title to the property originally sold and not the property as available at that time in the hands of the vendee. For the same reason the vendee is made liable to the pre-emptor for any wilful loss or damage caused to the property during the interval it vested in him.