DALAWAR SINGH Vs. SAWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this regular second appeal filed by the defendant-vendees in a suit for possession by pre-emption of some agricultural land, Shri Punchhi, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, has made three submissions, none of which deserves to succeed to my mind.

(2.) Eleven persons descending from a common ancestor had made a joint sale of the land in dispute. Sawan Singh plaintiff-respondent had claimed a superior right of pre-emption on two grounds, namely, that he was a co-sharer in the land and secondly that his father was the real brother of the fathers of the vendors. Both the Courts below have found that the first ground of pre-emption pleaded by the plaintiff-pre-emptor had not been proved and this ground is not being pressed by Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, in this Court either. The plaintiff was actually found to be a collateral of the degree alleged of some of the vendors who had sold a 5/8 share in the land in dispute. The sale price of Rs. 10,000/- mentioned in the sale deed was found by the trial Court to have been actually paid and fixed in good faith. The trial Court had therefore, granted the plaintiff-respondent a pre-emption decree in respect of 5/8 share in the land sold on payment of Rs. 6,250/-, that being the proportionate part of the sale price of Rs. 10,000/-. The question whether this pre-emption amount was deposited by the plaintiff-respondent within the time allowed by the Courts below or not would be dealt with further on in this judgment.

(3.) Shri Punchhi's first contention is that the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to prove his relationship with any of the vendors. The plaintiff had given his father's name as Mahna Singh and had not stated anywhere that his father was also known as Mahni. In the copies, exhibits P.1 and P.3, of the pedigree tables prepared by the revenue authorities as a part of the records of rights in the year 1966-1967 and 1943-44, one Sawan Singh is shown to be the son of Mahni son of Kahan Singh. Kahan Singh was the common ancestor of the vendors and Mahni is their collateral but according to Shri Punchhi, there is nothing to show that Mahni's son Sawan Singh is the same person as the plaintiff Sawan Singh son of Mahna Sirigh. This was a question of fact and both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff was none other than Sawan Singh son of Mahni. If the judgments of the Courts below are silent with regard to Mahni and Mahna Singh being the names of the same person, it could be due only to the fact that this was never disputed by the defendant-vendees in the Courts below. The plaintiff had produced the copies Exhibits P.1 and P. 3, in assertion of his claim that these Shajra Nasabs connected him with the vendors. There was no challenge to this assertion on the ground that Mahna Singh and Mahni were different persons. I have, therefore, no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below on issue No. 1 with regard to plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption. The vendees had not filed any appeal against the trial Court's findings on issue No. 1.