OM PARKASH Vs. CHAUDHRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Om Parkash plaintiff, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal.

(2.) Appellant-plaintiff filed suit for possession by pre-emption of 69 kanals 10 marlas land described in the plaint being half share of 138 kanals 19 marlas land alleging that the plaintiff is tenant over the suit land on annual rent of Rs. 1,000/- per acre under its owner Dayal Singh, who leased out the suit land to plaintiff about ten years prior to filing of the suit. Dayal Singh sold the suit land to defendant-respondent Chaudhri Ram vide registered sale deed dated 17.11.1988 for Rs. 2,50,000/- without notice to the plaintiff. Sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- recited in the sale deed is exaggerated to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Market value of the suit land also did not exceed Rs. 2,50,000/-, which was the sale consideration actually paid to vendor Dayal Singh. Plaintiff, being tenant over the suit land, claimed superior and preferential right of pre-emption. The defendant refused to accede the plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, plaintiff filed suit for possession by pre-emption.

(3.) The defendant, in his written statement, admitted the factum of sale in his favour by Dayal Singh vide sale deed dated 17.11.1988. The defendant, however, denied other allegations of the plaintiff. It was denied that plaintiff was tenant over the suit land under the vendor. It was also denied that plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption. It was pleaded that there was multiple litigation between the plaintiff and the vendor and therefore, the question of the plaintiff being tenant over the suit land under the vendor did not arise. It was also pleaded that the sale was made for Rs. 3,50,000/-, which amount was actually paid to the vendor and was also market price of the suit land at the time of sale. It was also pleaded that the vendor had already filed suit against the present plaintiff seeking declaration that vendor was owner in possession of the suit land and entries in revenue record depicting plaintiff as chakotedaar were obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with Patwari. There was also criminal litigation between the parties. Tenancy is created by bilateral contract and tenant has to pay rent or batai, but the plaintiff never paid any rent or batai to the vendor or the vendee-defendant. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff obtained some documents in collusion with the vendor, which are not binding on the plaintiff. In the event of decree, the defendant also claimed expenses of sale deed in addition to the sale consideration.