SADHU RAM Vs. JAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that he was a tenant of Avtar Singh vendor on the land in dispute on payment of l/3rd batoi. The aforesaid Avtar Singh sold the disputed land to one Subhash and the plaintiff continued to be a tenant under him. Subhash thereafter sold the land in question to the present defendants for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by registered sale deed dated 8th January, 1982. This is how the right of pre-emption was claimed by the plaintiff under the original tenant

(2.) THE vendees contested the suit primarily on the ground that the sale in their favour had already been pre-empted by the son of the vendor on 17th July, 1983 and, therefore, there was no pre-emptible interest in the suit land which could be enforced by the plaintiff pre-emptor. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right to pre-empt the sale in question ? OPP 2. Whether the suit against the defendant is not maintainable as alleged in para No. 2 of the preliminary objection of the written statement? OPD.

(3.) RELIEF. Under Issue No. 1 it was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff pre-emptor was proved to be tenant under the vendor but it was held under Issue No. 2 that the sale was not pre emptible in view of the passing of the decree Exhibit D 1 in favour of the son of the vendor. The judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed in appeal by the first appellate court. 3. No interference is called for in this appeal in view of the decree having been passed in favour of the son of the vendor who had the right to pre-empt the suit land and in whose favour a valid decree was passed before the service in the present suit was effected upon the defendants. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the findings recorded by the appellate court that no plea was raised that the decree was collusive and not blinding on the plaintiff. So much so that even amendment was not sought in the plaint challenging the decree on the ground that the same was either collusive or not binding. The appellate court was further right in observing that the argument raised by the counsel for the plaintiff-pre-emptor that the decree was not binding was beyond the pleadings. The findings of the appellate Court as well as the trial Court being correct, the same are hereby endorsed. In the light of the observations made above, the present appeal is found to be devoid of any marit and the same is consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.