SHANTI PARKASH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1984, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1982, passed by the Sub Judge, I Class, Ambala City, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, Om Parkash, for possession by way of pre -emption to the extent of 1/2 share in the property as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that Om Parkash, plaintiff, and Ahluwalia Panchayat, the Vendors, were co -sharers of the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share each, vide compromise decree, Exhibit P.5, dated 3.3.1979. The Ahluwalia Panchayat sold the property, including the shop, for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/ -, vide registered sale deed, Exhibit D.4, dated 21.7.1980. It is alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to pre -empt the sale, being co -sharer in the property, which had not been partitioned by metes and bounds and was still a joint property.

(2.) DEFENDANT Shanti Parkash, the Vendee, contested the suit on the grounds that the vendor was the absolute owner of the property; the plaintiff is not co -sharer in the property; it is an urban property situated in a town, where the Punjab Pre -emption Act is not applicable. It was further pleaded that the suit is not within time; the vendee, defendant has made material improvements in the property and the suit was not maintainable.

(3.) THE learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff was the co -owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share and the property is not an urban property. The learned trial Court decided issues No. 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant holding that the market value of the shop in dispute is Rs. 5,000/ -. The learned trial Court decided issue No. 4 in favour of the defendant holding that the defendant had spent Rs. 625/ - as stamp charges, Rs. 185/ - as registration charges and Rs. 20/ - as miscellaneous changes, which he is entitled to receive. While deciding issue No. 5, the suit was held to be within time. Under issue No. 6, it was held that the defendant could not prove any money spent on the improvement of the suit property. In view of the issue wise findings, the learned Sub Judge, II Class, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1982, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of pre -emption of 1/2 share in the property as fully described in the judgment and decree -sheet.