MISHRILAL HAZARILAL Vs. LAXMINARAYAN KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff whose pre-emption suit has been dismissed by the Courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that he was the owner of a house adjacent to the house in suit which belonged to one Sheochand; that Sheochand sold his house on 28-51949 by a registered sale-deed to the respondent Laxminarayan that the deed recited a consideration of Rs. 951/- for the sale but the sale was actually for Rs. 600/-; and that Sheochand sold the house and Laxminarayan purchased it without informing him of the intended sale and without giving him any opportunity to pre empt the property. The plaintiff proceeded to allege that on 2-6-1949 Laxminarayan sold the house to the respondent Mishrilal by a registered sale-deed for a supposed consideration of rs. 1450/ -. On these allegations, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to preempt the property for Rs. 600/ -. The defendants contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was asked whether he wished to purchase the house and that he had declined. The Courts below found that the sale in favour of Laxminarayan was for Rs. 951/-; that the respondent Laxminarayan sold the house to the respondent Mishrilal for rs. 1450/-, and that the plaintiff had waived his right to purchase the pro- perty at the time of both the sales. On these findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(3.) IN this appeal, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of a house adjacent to the one which Sheochand sold to Laxminarayan and that the sale in favour of Laxminarayan was for Rs. 951/. The appellant has not challenged the finding of the lower Courts that Sheochand sold the house to Laxminarayan for Rs. 951/. The argument of Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant, is that there is no evidence whatever to show that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to purchase the property for Rs. 951/- when a definite agreement to purchase the house had been entered into between Sheochand and Laxminarayan; and that the evidence on record was vague and indefinite even to hold that the plaintiff was at any time, asked to purchase the property.