KESHO RAM Vs. LADODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contesting defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, whereby the suit for possession by pre-emption filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was decreed.

(2.) Narain son of Kalu, who was owner of 1/10th share in land measuring 16 Kanals 9 Marlas, sold the same to the vendee-defendant-appellants (Hereinafter the contesting defendants) by registered sale deed dated April 27, 1987 for Rs. 30,000/-. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter the plaintiff) being a co-sharer claimed a superior right of pre-emption. The vendor was given up at the trial and the suit was contested only by the contesting defendants. The trial Court, relying upon copy of the compromise Exhibit P-1, copy of the judgment by the Court Ex. P-5 and copy of the decree Ex. P-4 passed in terms of the compromise Ex. P-1 held that the plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption being a co-sharer and decreed the suit.

(3.) The first appellate Court relying upon copy of the compromise dated June 8, 1984 (Ex. P-1) copy of Jamabandi, Ex. P-3 judgment and decree of the Court, Ex. P.5 and P.4 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption and resultantly it affirmed the finding of the trial Judge. It negatived the claim of the contesting defendants that the pre-emptor initially got the property under gift deed dated December 11, 1963 (Copy Ex. D-1), but the same was not given effect to in the records of right. The first appellate Court negatived the plea of the contesting defendants in view of the authentic evidence referred to above. The conclusions arrived at by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the suit land and she had a superior right of pre-emption is essentially a finding of fact based upon appreciation of evidence.