AMATUL RASHID Vs. AMATUL JALIL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claimed her right of pre-emption over the property bearing Survey Nos. 126/1, 126/3, 146/2 bearing areas 1.55 hectare, 0.94 hectare and 0.02 hectare respectively, total area 2.52 hectare situated at Village Dorli, Chhatarpur, Tahsil Seoni by way of a Civil Suit No. 5- A of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Seoni vide judgment and decree dated 30.6.2005. In Civil Appeal No. 121-A of 2005 the learned District Judge, Seoni wide judgment and decree dated 28.3.2006 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.

(2.) The appellant being a plaintiff has pleaded before the Trial Court that the appellant and respondent No. 1 are sisters and they received some property from their parents. Both the sisters are married. Revenue proceedings relating to partition took place and vide order dated 7.9.1998 some of the revenue land was given to the applicant and remaining revenue land was given to the respondent No. 1 in partition. The appellant was cultivating on the lands of the respondent No. 1 on theka. The appellant has possession of land bearing Survey Nos. 126/3 and 146. She had possession of the house on the land bearing Survey No. 146. At the time of partition the plaintiff gave an offer that the respondent No. 1 shall not sell the land to anyone else except the appellant. On 12.3.2003 the respondent No. l,had sold the land bearing Survey Nos. 126/1, 126/3 and 146/2, total area 2.15 hectares to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in sum of L 1,62,000/-. When the appellant received the information about the sale then she gave a notice in writing on 2.4.2003 and similar notices were given to the purchasers. During the pendency of the suit the appellant was dispossessed and therefore, she also added the relief of possession in her suit whereas the suit was filed for execution of right of her pre-emption.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement denied the averments made in the plaintiff. They denied the possession of the appellant on the suit property and it was pleaded that the property of the respondent No. 1 was validly sold by the respondent No. 1 to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and possession was also given. They denied the right of pre-emption accrued to the applicant. They denied that they received any notice from the side of the appellant. It is also denied that the appellant was ready to pay a sum of L 1,62,000/- without any delay. The respondent No. 1 had already given an offer to the appellant to purchase the land but, she avoided it on and often. If she would have given the amount in the year 2003 and the respondent No. 1 would have deposited the amount in the fixed deposit of some Bank then that amount would have multiplied. Cost of the property has increased and therefore, the applicant unnecessarily desires to usurp the property. Some objections were taken on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and also other grounds were raised by the respondents.