Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913

Section: S. 21

  Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21-A-Vendee can improve his status after sale but before suit-Pre-emptor not so entitled-Such improvement takes effect from date of sale-- Pre-emptor's status to be determined with reference to date of sale -Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 28-A read with S. 4 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, r. 14.   In a pre-emption suit a vendee- defendant is by implication permitted by section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 to improve his status after the sale but before the insti tution of a suit for pre-emption. The position with regard to a pre-emptor, however, is different. 1t is not permissible for a pre -emptor to so improve his position before the date of the institution of the suit as to render the improvement made by the vendee in his status ineffectual. The relevant date for determining the status of a pre-emptor is the date of the sale on which he seeks to pre-empt. Any improvement in his status after the date of the sale is of no avail. Any improvement obtained by him through a Court decree takes effect from the date the conditions of the decree are fulfilled and. he is substituted for the vendees, and not from the date of the sale which formed the subject- matter of that decree. As regards the vendee, the relevant date is the date of the institution of the suit as prescribed by section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Any improvement in his status effected by a vendee takes effect from the date of the sale in his favour and not after the expiry of the period of limitation or the dismissal of any pre emption suit which may be brought in respect of such a sate.   Nadir Ali Shah v. Wali and Amir I L R 5 Lab. 486 ; Lachhman Singh v. Natha Singh I L R 11 Lab. 128 ; Deonandan Prashad Singh v. Ramdhari Chowdhri (1916) I L R 44 Cal. 675 (PC); Deokinandan v. Sri Ram (1890) I L R 12 All. 234 ; Muhammad Sadiq v. Ghasi Ram and others A I R 1946 Lab. 322 ; Kalu and others v. Bhupa and Bisharat Ali 30 P R 1893 ; Faiz Muhammad v. Fajar All A I R 1944 Lah. 172 and Boota Ram v. Bagga Singh A I R 1948 Lab. 103 ref.   Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 28-A-Does not debar…