Balkar Singh and Anr v. Mujhel Joint Farming Co-Op Society

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Balkar Singh an The Mujhel Join Co-operative So

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Res

vid MANDEEP PA

1.

appellants/defen the learned Tria suit of the plain favour of the pla Court affirmed

11.10.1993. Brief Facts

2.

Bri Society, throug emption in resp THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

nd Another

VERSUS nt Farming ociety Ltd. Tikri

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the a spondent proceeded against ex p de order dated 26.08.2025. -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second A ndants against the concurrent find al Court, vide judgment and dec ntiff and passed a decree for po aintiff and against the defendant the said judgment and decree iefly stated, the facts of the case h its member and cashier Shri pect of agricultural land measur

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2521-1993 (O&M) served on:-03.12.2025 onounced on:- 11.12.2025 ploaded on:-11.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellants

....Respondent DEEP PANNU appellants. arte Appeal has been filed by dings of the Courts below, wher cree dated 11.09.1991, decreed ossession by way of pre-emption ts, and the learned Lower Appel by its judgment and decree da e are that the plaintiff–Cooperat i Ajit Singh, filed a suit for p ring 23 kanals 2 marlas situated

-eby n in late ated tive pre-

village Bhat Ma of Ganesh Dass, and she sold th registered sale d Khewat and the Nos. 1, 2 and 1 the sale deed w market value of claimed a super same Khewat fr its status as co-averments, the s

3.

controverting th any superior ri limitation. The contending that pleaded that spe vendees and not of ₹21,000/- wa the vendor. Acc stated as ₹21,00

4.

Fro by the Trial Cou

¶1ajra, Tehsil Guhla. According to , was the recorded co-sharer in K his share of land for a sum of ₹ deed. The sale was described as e relevant field numbers were re

¶10It was further pleaded that th was neither fixed in good faith n f the suit land at the time of sale ior right of pre-emption on the g rom which the land had been al Khewatdar, it possessed a super suit for possession by way of pre e defendants appeared and he entire claim of the plaintiff. ight of pre-emption and asser e defendants further raised t the plaintiff could not pre-emp ecific Khasra numbers had been t an undefined share in the Khew as genuine, fixed in good faith, a cording to the defendants, the v 00/- and not ₹11,000/- as alleged om the pleadings for the parties urt Whether the plaintiff has a su

the plaintiff, Smt. Lilawati, wid Khewat No.3 of the land in quest ₹21,000/- on 15.11.1972 throug s pertaining to a share in the en ecorded as Rectangle No. 26, K he sale consideration mentioned nor actually paid, and that the r e was only ₹11,000/-. The plain ground that it was a co-sharer in ienated, and therefore, by virtue rior right of pre-emption. On th e-emption was filed. filed their written statem They denied that the plaintiff h rted that the suit was barred the plea of partial pre-empti t the sale as alleged. It was furt sold by the vendor in favour of wat, and that the sale considerat and actually paid by the vendees value of the suit land was correc by the plaintiff. , the following issues were fram uperior right to pre-emption? OP

- dow tion gh a ntire Killa d in real ntiff e of hese ment had by ion, ther f the tion s to ctly med

2.

3.

4.

5.

¶6pai

7.

8.

9.

5.

remand from th additional issue was framed on evidence specifi remand is as und "1( or w Findings of the

6.

Wh Court held that "Jai Narain & R Ltd. Tikri", dec transferring 55/1 noted that in the Whether the plaintiff has no Whether the 1/5th has been d Whether the suit is time-barr Whether the suit is bad for pa Whether the sale price was d? OPD If Issue No. 6 is not proved, suit land? OPD Whether the suit is maintaina Relief e Trial Court recorded that the he Hon'ble High Court for bein e. In compliance with the High

13.06.1991 and both sides wer fically on this newly framed issu der:

(a) Whether the plaintiff ceased whether the plaintiff retained the e trial Court hile deciding Issue No. 1 and the plaintiff-society had proved Ramesh Chand vs. The Mujhel J cided on 28.05.1973, the plain 133 share of the land in favour o e decree-sheet, a clerical error h

locus standi to file the suit? OPD deposited in time? OPD red? OPD artial pre-emption? OPD fixed in good faith or was actua what was the then market value able in the present form? OPD present case had been received ng decided afresh after framing Court's directions, Issue No. 1 re afforded full opportunity to l ue. The additional issue framed to be the owner of the entire la e fraction of the land? OPP" Issue No. 1(a) together, the T d that in the earlier litigation tit Joint Farming Co-operative Soc ntiff-society had suffered a dec of Ramesh Chand and others. It w had occurred by recording the sh

- D ally e of d on g an 1(a) ead d on and Trial tled iety cree was

as 55/109, but th an application f the original rec transferred was the remaining 1 sanctioned by th decree. Thus, th the date of sale.

7.

not filed by an society, had bee suit. The Court the society were winding-up orde of law and was c

8.

Issu favour of the pl in the suit land, and 5 were not them. Issues No good faith and w were decided ag was genuine and

9.

Ult Court held that he error was subsequently correc filed by the society. After exam cord summoned, the Trial Cour 55/133, and that the plaintiff-so /133 share in the entire land. Th he revenue authorities was held he plaintiff-society was held to b e Trial Court rejected the defen n authorised person. It held tha en duly authorised under resolu further observed that although p e pending before the Deputy Re er was decided, the society cont competent to prosecute the suit. ues relating to locus standi an aintiff, as the Court found that t thereby possessing a superior ri pressed by the defendants and o. 6 and 7, relating to whether t whether it was actually paid, we gainst the plaintiff, with the fin d had been paid. timately, based on its findings t the plaintiff-society had a s

cted by the Court on 19.03.1976 mining Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, as well rt concluded that the correct sh ociety continued to remain owner he mutation to the extent of 56/ to be erroneous and contrary to be a co-sharer in the suit Khewat ndants' objection that the suit w at Shri Ajit Singh, cashier of ution Ex.P3 to institute the pres proceedings regarding dissolution egistrar, until the appeal against inued to be in existence in the e nd maintainability were decided the plaintiff-society was a co-sha ight of pre-emption. Issues No. 3 d were accordingly decided aga the sale consideration was fixed ere not pressed by the plaintiff ding that the sale price of ₹21,0 on Issues No.1 and 1(a), the T superior right of pre-emption

- 6 on l as hare r of t on was sent n of eyes d in arer 3, 4 inst d in and Trial

decreed the sui decree for poss plaintiff and aga Findings of the

10.

Fee passed by the l possession by w The learned Low appeal, affirmed judgment and de

11.

remanded by th

18.08.1990, wit framing a speci society. Pursua

13.06.1991 and remand proceed were re-examine

12.

Up Trial Court had 1/133 share in th rights in the j conclusion that by way of decre not amount to t, directing the plaintiff to dep session by way of pre-emption ainst the defendants. e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the judgm learned Trial Court, whereby th way of pre-emption was decreed, wer Appellate Court, after apprec d the findings of the Trial Cou ecree dated 11.10.1993. e appellate court noted at the ou e Hon'ble High Court in RSA N th a direction to the Trial Cour ific issue concerning the fraction ant thereto, the learned Trial d afforded opportunity to both s dings, the Trial Court decreed the ed by the Lower Appellate Cour on reappraisal, the learned Low d correctly concluded that the p he joint khewat and, therefore, re oint land. The appellate Cour although the plaintiff-society ha ee in favour of Jai Narain and R transfer of its entire interest.

posit the pre-emption amount. T was thus passed in favour of ment and decree dated 11.09.19 he suit of the plaintiff-society the defendants preferred an app ciating the evidence and grounds urt and dismissed the appeal v utset that the matter had earlier b No. 1511 of 1978, vide order da rt to decide the matter afresh a n of land retained by the plaint Court framed Issue No.1(a) sides to lead their evidence. A e suit, and it was those findings t rt. wer Appellate Court held that plaintiff-society continued to ret emained a co-sharer with subsist rt agreed with the Trial Cou ad earlier transferred 55/133 sha Ramesh Chander, such transfer The Trial Court's reliance on

- for eal. s of vide een ated after tiff-on After that tain ting urt's ares

corrected decree by order dated 1

13.

finding that th showing transfe legal position. I of law despite t winding-up proc juristic capacity

14.

Court on Issue standi to file an form. The plea filed on 15.11.1 of the sale-deed year.

15.

Sin and 7, the appel well. The appell the suit for pre-e

16.

Acc Trial Court were

17.

Fee present Regular judgment and d e-sheet (Ex. P5), as well as the c

19.03.1976, was found to be appr e Lower Appellate Court also he mutation sanctioned by rev er of 56/133 shares, was errone t further held that the society co the appointment of a liquidator ceedings were still pending, and y to maintain the suit. e Lower Appellate Court furthe Nos.2 and 8, holding that the d maintain the suit and that the of limitation was also rejected, 973 was within one year from th d dated 15.11.1972, even conside nce no evidence had been led by llate court upheld the findings o late court concluded that the lear emption and that no ground exist cordingly, the judgment and dec e affirmed and the appeal was di eling aggrieved by the concurren r Second Appeal has been filed ecree dated 11.09.1991 passed b

clerical error subsequently rectif ropriate. concurred with the Trial Cou venue authorities on 09.06.19 eous and did not reflect the corr ontinued to remain alive in the e vide order dated 24.07.1991, si d therefore the society retained r affirmed the findings of the T e plaintiff had the necessary lo suit was maintainable in its pres with the court holding that the he date of execution and registrat ering that the year 1972 was a l the appellants on Issue Nos. 3, 4 of the Trial Court on these issues rned Trial Court had rightly decr ted for interference. cree dated 11.09.1991 of the learn ismissed. nt findings of the Courts below, by the defendants challenging by the learned Trial Court wher

- fied urt's 974, rect eyes ince Trial ocus sent suit tion eap 4, 5 s as reed ned

the suit of the p as well as the ju Appellate Court

18.

none appeared o earlier represent opportunities, n appellants as n against ex parte Submissions of

19.

Lea gravely erred in the date of sale comprised in Kh 11 and 12 vide s not have any p which the impu the vendor had delivered exclus concept of joint society had alr mutation, and th on 19.03.1976 is when the decre already taken p plaintiff-society for possession by udgment and decree dated 11.10 t affirming the same. tice of the appeal was issued to on behalf of the respondent. It is ted the society as its authorised no legal representative of Ajit none came forward. Accordingl . f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellan holding that the plaintiff-society e. It is contended that the vend hewat No. 3, Khatoni No. 6, Re sale deed dated 10.05.1972, and pre-emptory right in respect of ugned sale deed dated 15.11.197 been in exclusive possession o sive possession thereof at the t t ownership or co-sharership. It eady transferred its entire shar herefore ceased to be a co-sharer s argued to be illegal and not bin ee was passed on 28.05.1973 a place on 15.11.1972. According

y way of pre-emption was decre

0.1993 passed by the learned Low o the respondent-society. Howev on record that Shri Ajit Singh, w d person, had passed away. Desp Singh could be impleaded by ly, the respondent was procee lants nts argued that the Courts bel y was a co-sharer in the suit land dor sold land measuring 56 kan ct. No. 25, Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 9, therefore the plaintiff-society co land falling in Rect. No.26, fr 2 emanated. It is further urged t f certain specific numbers and h time of sale, thereby excluding is further argued that the plaint re under a civil court decree r. The correction of the decree-sh nding on the appellants, particula and when the sale in dispute h g to the appellants, such correct

- eed, wer ver, who pite ded low d on nals, 10, ould rom that had tiff-and heet arly had

during pendency any right upon t

20.

It i person. Resolut during evidence to prove the orig ought to have submits that du Assistant Regist society and appo had no juristic e the Lower Appe was erroneous, Act the appeal against the orde counsel emphas only authorised which itself dem

21.

It i claim a right of nature is inten According to the of Sections 14 a maintainability y of proceedings without signatu the society. is next contended that the suit w tion Ex.P3 was produced only e the plaintiff failed to produce t ginal resolution. Thus, the objec been dismissed on this groun uring pendency of the suit, v trar, Co-operative Societies pas ointed a liquidator. Therefore, th entity to continue the proceedin ellate Court that an appeal was p as under Section 114(1)(c) of t would lie only before the Gove er of liquidation and thus the so sised that even during pendency person, also died, and no one ha monstrates that the society does n s further argued that the plainti f pre-emption, because such a rig nded for natural persons, and e appellants, the Courts below ou and 15 of the Act, and issue Nos should have been decided in th

ures of the parties could not con was not filed by a duly authori y "subject to mode of proof", the proceedings book of the soci ction remained uncured and the nd alone. Learned counsel furt vide order dated 24.07.1991, ssed an order of winding up of he society ceased to exist in law ngs. It is argued that the finding pending before the Deputy Regis the Haryana Co-operative Socie ernment. No stay has been gran ociety had ceased to exist. Learn of the present RSA, Ajit Singh, as appeared to represent the socie not exist. ff being a juristic person could ght being equitable and persona d not for statutory corporatio ught to have considered the sche . 2 and 8 regarding locus standi heir favour. On limitation also i

- nfer ised yet iety suit ther and g of trar ties nted ned ety, not al in ons. eme and

urged that the s year under Secti

22.

Lea application for a prove that their had succeeded t of sale to the pla emption. The C claim pre-empti share entitled th pre-emption, pre when it alienate Findings of this

23.

I h appellants and h Courts below.

24.

It i concurrent findi joint khewat. T instead of 55/1 examining the o alter substantive despite the muta holding. These f suit filed on 15.11.1973 was be ion 31 of the Act, as limitation e arned counsel also referred to th additional evidence. It is argued father was a co-sharer in the join to his rights by mutation, makin aintiff-society. Therefore, the pl Courts below allegedly erred in h ion and further erred in holding he plaintiff to claim pre-emptio evention of fragmentation, had b d a substantial portion of land ea s Court have considered the submissi have examined the entire record is established on record, and ings, that the plaintiff-society co The earlier mistake in the decre 133 shares was rectified by th original file. The correction was e rights of the parties. The Co ation entries, the society continu findings are pure findings of fac

eyond the prescribed period of xpired on 14.11.1973. he order dismissing the appellan d that the appellants were entitled nt khewat and that on his death th ng them co-sharers even on the d laintiff had no superior right of p holding that a juristic person co g that mere retention of fractio on, even though the very object been defeated by the plaintiff it arlier. ions of learned counsel for d as well as the findings of both both Courts below have return ontinued to retain 1/133 share in ee-sheet mentioning 55/109 sha he civil court on 19.03.1976 a s a clerical rectification and did ourts below have rightly held t ued to hold 1/133 share in the jo ct based on evidence and examin

- one nts' d to hey date pre-ould onal t of self ned ares after not that oint

them in second shown.

25.

Reg Courts below th filing on 15.11. and the last day

26.

whether the plai decree for pre-e Singh during pe represent the so person authoris successor has st wound up vide o society would c nothing on reco that the liquidat to represent it.

27.

In t Singh and ano upon becomes r pendency of a su an independent continue and mu appeal is impermissible unless p garding limitation also, I find no hat the date of execution and 1973 was within limitation, esp could validly include the annive e substantial question that now intiff-society can be deemed to emption, in view of the death o endency of the RSA and the fac ociety thereafter. The record rev sed through Ex.P3 to represent tepped in. Furthermore, the soci order dated 24.07.1991. Even tho continue to exist till finalisation rd before this Court to show tha or is prosecuting this litigation, this context, the judgment of th other vs. Mohinder Kaur and o relevant. There it was held that uit for pre-emption, his heirs can t right of pre-emption. If they must fail. The reasoning proceeds

perversity is demonstrated. Non o infirmity in the conclusion of registration being 15.11.1972, pecially since 1972 was a leap y ersary date. w arises in the present appeal be in existence so as to sustain of its authorised representative A ct that no one has come forward veals that Ajit Singh was the o t the society. With his death, iety had already been ordered to ough the Courts below held that of liquidation proceedings, ther at the society continued to functi or that any person exists compet he Punjab High Court in Mohin others 1966 (68) PLR 839, rel when a pre-emptor dies during n continue the suit only if they h y lack such right, the suit can s on the basis that the right of p

-e is year l is Ajit d to only o be e is ion, tent nder lied have nnot pre-

emption is a pe possesses the qu

28.

Ap person. Once th entity has died, continue the liti through duly au person survives exercised in vac entity represente with the windin leads to the ines entity so as to su

29.

Eve retained a fract emption itself c legal and practi (supra) squarely

30.

Acc reasoned on the upheld in view ceased to have right of pre-em independent righ ersonal, weak, and statutory rig ualifying status at the relevant tim plying this ratio to the present ca e only authorised human agency , and no one having independe igation, the decree cannot be su uthorised persons. There is nothin s or has been appointed. The cuum, it must be exercised by a l ed by a competent human agenc ng-up order and complete absen scapable conclusion that the soc ustain a decree of pre-emption. en if it be assumed, as held by tional share, the decree canno annot survive when the pre-emp ical purposes. The principle laid y applies, and the present pre-em cordingly, the findings of the Co e merits of co-sharership, limitat w of the supervening circumsta any competent representative t mption cannot pass to stran ht. The decree for pre-emption,

ght, enforceable only by one w me. ase, the plaintiff-society is a juri y capable of representing the juri ent statutory right has appeared ustained. A corporation exists o ng on record to show that any su e right of pre-emption cannot living person or a subsisting juri y. The death of Ajit Singh, coup ce of representation despite not ciety does not subsist as a litigat the Courts below, that the soci t stand because the right of p ptor is no longer in existence for d down in Mohinder Singh's c mption decree cannot be preserve ourts below, though otherwise w tion and maintainability, cannot ance that the plaintiff-society to pursue the proceedings, and ngers or persons not possess being of a personal and precari

- who istic istic d to only uch be istic pled tice, ting iety pre-r all case ed. well-t be has sing

nature, cannot s successor is sho Conclusion

31.

In v allowed. The ju the Courts below

32.

Pen

December 11, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh survive the demise of the only own to exist. view of the above discussion, the udgments and decrees dated 11.0 w are set aside and the suit of the nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

authorised representative when e present Regular Second Appea

09.1991 and 11.10.1993 passed e plaintiff stands dismissed. stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- n no al is