KUBER SINGH Vs. JAI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought a pre-emption suit and in his plaint he omitted to say in what mahal the property which he desired to pre-empt was situated. He mentioned at the end of the plaint seven mauzas and one patti in those seven mauzas and in para. 2 of the plaint he stated that the plaintiff and defendant 4 Mt. Hubraji Kunwar, the alleged vendor, were co-sharers in and zamindars of Mauza Naikdeh. Kuber Singh, defendant 1, one of the alleged vendees, pleaded in para. 18:

(2.) On this pleading the trial Court framed issue 2:

(3.) On this issue the trial Court found: