R.S.A.No. 338 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 338 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 Ram Dhan ......Appellant Versus M/s Mepsco Builders Pvt. Ltd. and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of pre emption. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant over the property in dispute and hence, the defendants No. 2 and 3 could not sell the land to defendant No.1 without issuing notice to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit to pre empt the sale deed dated 27.1.2006 executed by defendants No.2and 3 in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 in its written statement denied the fact R.S.A.No. 338 of 2010 (O&M) 2 that the plaintiff was tenant over the property in dispute. It was averred that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 27.1.2006 for consideration. The owners were described in possession of the suit property as per the revenue record. Defendants No.2 and 3 were, however, given up being unnecessary on a statement made by learned counsel for the plaintiff vide order date 1.3.2006. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property by way of pre emption of the sale deed dated 27.1.2006 as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form nor the plaintiff has any locus-standi to file the same? OPD 3. Relief. The following additional issue was framed by the trial Court on 9.6.2008:- 2-A Whether the defendants are entitled for declaration regarding correction of entries in jamabandi for the year 1991-92 and subsequent to that ? OPD The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2008. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by R.S.A.No. 338 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that initially the land in question was owned by him and he later exchanged the same with the defendants. After the defendants became owners of the land in question on the basis of exchange deed, the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant over the property in dispute in the year 1991. However, the plaintiff failed to prove on record any such document vide which the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant over the property in dispute. As per the copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Krishna Kumari and her daughters were described to be owners in possession of the suit land. However, in the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the name of the plaintiff was mentioned in the column of cultivation but there was no explanation as to how the name of the plaintiff had figured in the column of cultivation. The plaintiff was required to establish that he was a tenant over the property in dispute but no such documentary evidence had been led by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also failed to establish any receipt qua payment of rent to land owners. In order to succeed in a suit for pre emption, the plaintiff was required to prove that he was tenant over the land in dispute and R.S.A.No. 338 of 2010 (O&M) 4 had a right to pre empt on the date of sale deed, on the date of filing of the suit and on the date of passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance only. The pre emptor, who claims the right to pre empt the sale on the date of the sale must prove that such right continued to subsist till the passing of the decree of the first Court. Since the plaintiff had failed to establish his tenancy, learned Additional District Judge, rightly ordered that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 17, 2011 anita