SMT. BABLI DEVI Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants Babli Devi and others challenged this appeal-judgment and decrees of the Courts below vide which suit filed by Ram Gopal and others for possession by way of pre-emption was decreed. The plaintiffs claimed to be co-sharers in the suit land and, thus, entitled to pre-empt the sale which was in favour of defandant Nos. 1 to 6 by defendant No. 7, Ram Lal. The vendor was in possession of the suit land measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas being 627/747 share in the land measuring 37 kanals 7 marlas, as detailed in para 2-A of the plaint. He was also owner of 54/86 share in the land measuring 49 kanals 6 marlas, as detailed in para 2-B of the plaint. On May 29,1985, he sold the same in favour of Telu Ram and others, defendant Nos. 1 to 6, for Rs. 1,17,262/-. According to plaintiffs, in fact the sale consideration was Rs. 88,262/- and the remaining amount, was fictitiously incorporated in the sale-deed. The plaintiffs claimed co-ownership on the basis of mutation No. 2845 dated January 29, 1983.

(2.) While resisting the suit defendant Nos. 1 to 6, Telu and others, challenged locus standi of plaintiffs to file the suit inter alia alleging that the partition proceedings were pending and no final partition had taken place, thus, plaintiffs were not co-sharers. The defendants further claimed to be in possession of the suit land as tenants under the vendor Ram Lal defendant No. 7 before and at the time of sale deed. Sale consideration was properly affixed. They have made improvements on the suit land by planting trees and in case of decree of the suit, they claimed a sum of Rs. 32,500/- towards improvement apart from expenses of the sale-deed.

(3.) Several issues were framed on the pleadings aforesaid. Only two issues survived for decision in this appeal, namely issue Nos. 1 and 4, which are reproduced below:-