MANGAL AND OTHERS Vs. THARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal against whom the suit for possession by way of pre-emption has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Shrimati Laxmi Devi, who had inherited the land from her father, sold the suit land vide registered sale deed dated June 16, 1969, in favour of the defendants-appellants for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The plaintiffs-respondents sought to pre-empt that sale on the ground that they being the brothers of the vendor had a superior right of pre-emption. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the plea that they were tenants on the demised land under the vendor at the time of the sale and thereafter and, thus, the same was not pre-emptible. The trial court found that Richhpal Singh, one of the vendees, alone was a tenant on the suit land under the vendor at the time of the sale, but since he had associated some strangers with him in the purchase, he could not defeat the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of his being a tenant on the land. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 2,232/. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge did agree with the reasoning of the trial court that Richhpal Singh, one of the vendees, who was found to be a tenant on the suit land at the time of the sale, having associated with him in the joint purchase, other defendants who were strangers, had lost his right of pre-emption. However, after discussing the entire evidence on the record, it was concluded that even Richhpal Singh, one of the vendees, had also failed to prove himself to be a tenant on the suit land under the vendor. Consequently, the decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit was maintained though on a different ground. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in second appeal to this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that it has been amply proved on the record that Richhpal Singh, one of the vendees, was a tenant on the suit land under the vendor and that the finding of the trial Court in this behalf was correct which has been reversed by the lower appellate Court merely on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned counsel, once it is held that one of the vendees Richhpal Singh was a tenant on the suit land under the vendor, the sale could not be pre-empted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Kartar Singh v. Manphul,1973 PunLJ 29.