Court sets aside judgment, orders respondents to pay costs. Consent decree deemed void.

The court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal and ordering the respondents to bear the appellant's costs, including an advocate's fee of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant, a necessary party in the suit for pre-emption, was not impleaded, violating their constitutional and human rights. The consent decree was deemed void due to collusion and fraud, with the court finding it entered into without the appellant's involvement, leading to the judgment in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
2. Validity of the consent decree and the right of pre-emption.
3. Non-impleadment of a necessary party.
4. Alleged collusion and fraud in obtaining the decree.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:
The case involves the interpretation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Act confers a special right of pre-emption on specified persons, allowing them to acquire agricultural land or village immovable property in preference to others. The right arises only in the case of sales or foreclosures. Sections 5, 6, and 10 of the Act outline the limitations and prohibitions on this right. Section 19 provides the procedure for claiming pre-emption, requiring notice to pre-emptors through the court.

2. Validity of the Consent Decree and the Right of Pre-emption:
The constitutionality of the Act was upheld by a Constitution Bench in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, which validated the right of pre-emption for co-sharers and tenants but struck down the right based on consanguinity. The court found no justification for the classification of kinsfolk entitled to pre-emption, declaring it inconsistent with modern ideas and the constitutional scheme. Consequently, Respondent No. 8, as a daughter of Respondent No. 9, could not claim a right of pre-emption.

3. Non-impleadment of a Necessary Party:
The appellant was not impleaded as a party in the suit for pre-emption, despite being in possession of the land and having purchased it through a registered deed of sale. The court held that the appellant's right to own and possess the land could not be taken away without giving him an opportunity of hearing, as it is a constitutional and human right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The right of pre-emption, being a weak statutory right, must comply with procedural requirements, and the appellant was a necessary party in the suit.

4. Alleged Collusion and Fraud in Obtaining the Decree:
The court observed that the manner in which the consent decree was entered into indicated collusion between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 9. The consent decree was void ab initio as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, having transferred their rights, could not convey any right in the property of Defendant No. 9. The court found that the parties committed fraud by suppressing material facts and obtaining the decree without the appellant's involvement.

Conclusion:
The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the appellant, with an advocate's fee assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.

---