DHAN KAUR Vs. BHAGWANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above detailed regular second appeals though have arisen as a consequence of different suits, filed by Smt. Bhagwani Devi against Smt. Dhan Kaur and others and having been decreed by judgment decree dated 13.05.1991 by the Court of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak and the appeals of the unsuccessful defendants having been dismissed by orders dated 07.03.1992 on account of consanguity of facts and law point are taken up and disposed off together by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts have been drawn from RSA-1092-1992, one, Bhagwani Devi, then plaintiff, filed against defendant No.1, Smt. Dhan Kaur, defendant No.2, Sultan Singh and defendant No.3 Har Sarup, of suit for possession by way of preemption of land measuring 09 canal 1 1/2 marlas being total share of the total land detailed and described in the plaint by way of pre-emption of sale deed dated 12.10.1988. The claim is on the grounds that the plaintiff is a co-sharer of the suit land along with defendant No.2-Sultan Singh and, therefore, had superior right to pre-empt the sale deed dated 12.10.1988 claiming that Sultan Singh had sold the land for Rs. 15,000/- through registered sale deed dated 12.10.1988 to Dhan Kaur without notice to the plaintiff/co-sharer and therefore, has prayed that decree of pre-emption with possession of the land be based subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant No.2, Dhan Kaur has tried to lease out the land in favour of defendant No.3, Har Sarup, who happens to be husband of Dhan Kaur to defeat access to right of preemption. The defendants in their stand besides taking up usual preliminary objections as to misjoinder of parties, causes of action, the plaintiff having no locus standi to file the suit. On merits, took the plea denying that the plaintiff had any superior right to pre-empt and further that the lease deed executed in favour of Har Sarup was for a period of 50 years and who is in cultivating possession of the same. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(3.) The plaintiff to prove her case testified as PW-1 and proved the sale deeds Ex. P1 and P2, jamabandi Ex.P3 and P4, copy of plaint Ex.P3 and P6 (sic), copy of written statement Ex.P2 and documents P5 and P7 (sic). The defendants on the other hand examined Har Sarup as DW-5, Phool Chand as DW-2, Kashmiri Lal as DW-2 and Partap Singh as DW-3 and re-treating the case proof documents sale deed as Ex.D1. (A II sic)