RAM CHAND versus RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS

RAM CHAND versus RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS

An agricultural tenant inducted by a usufructuary mortgagee under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act has a right of pre-emption over the sale made by the mortgagor-vendor, and where part of the land sold is tenanted by such a tenant, the tenant may pre-empt the entire sale, in line with the object of preventing fragmentation and securing the tiller’s rights.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Chand; Respondents: Randhir Singh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 October 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 1.2.83 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.s.a No. 1611 of 1973
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Usufructuary Mortgage, Agricultural Tenancy, Punjab Pre Emption Act, 1913
Property Law Agrarian Law Pre Emption Usufructuary Mortgage Agricultural Tenancy Punjab Pre Emption Act, 1913

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Chand

Appellant

Randhir Singh and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 1.2.83 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.s.a No. 1611 of 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agricultural tenant inducted by the usufructuary mortgagee has a right of pre-emption over the sale made by the mortgagor-vendor
  2. 2 Whether an agricultural tenant holding under tenancy of the vendor a part of the sold land is entitled to pre-empt the entire sale

Ratio Decidendi

An agricultural tenant inducted by a usufructuary mortgagee under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act has a right of pre-emption over the sale made by the mortgagor-vendor, and where part of the land sold is tenanted by such a tenant, the tenant may pre-empt the entire sale, in line with the object of preventing fragmentation and securing the tiller’s rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court and that of the Trial Court set aside; operative order of the lower appellate court restored, decreeing the suit of pre-emption.
  • Appellants to deposit the sum required by the lower appellate court on or before December 31, 1994, failing which the relief of a positive decree will be denied though law as settled will stand.