DHARAMBIR Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, on 22-4-1991 by which the appeal of the defendants-appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 4-3-1988 (decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents) was upheld.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for possession of the suit land by way of pre-emption on the ground that Rati Ram and Suresh Kumar were owners/co sharers to the extent of one-half share in the suit land comprising in Khewat No. 293, Khatauni No. 529, Khasra Nos. 48/18/2 (1-11), 19/2 (1-11 ). 21 (7-11), 22 (7-11), 47/25 (2-14), 48/23 (7-11) and 24/1 (3-19), total measuring 32 Kanals 8 Marias, while the plaintiffs-respondents were owners/co-sharers of the remaining one-half share and that Rati Ram and Suresh Kumar sold away their one half share in favour of Dharambir and Rajbir vendees-defendants appellants for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 25 000/- vide sale deed dated 30-3-87. The plaintiffs-respondents, thus claiming themselves to be the co-sharers in the suit land, filed the instant suit for pre-empting the sale, They also contended that the sale, in fact, took place for Rs. 20,000/- while an amount of Rs. 5,000/- more was got mentioned in the sale-deed fictitiously in order to defeat the right of the pre-emptors. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents that even the market value of the land was not more than Rs. 20,000/- at the time of sale.

(3.) THE defendants-appellants contested the suit on the ground that the vendees-defendants appellants were already co-sharers in the Khewat, in dispute, because they had purchased the land measuring 12 Kanals 9 Marias in the same Khewat, vide sale-deed dated 20-8-1985 and as such, the plaintiffs-respondents have no superior right to preempt the sale. The vendees defendants appellants also took the plea that they are tenants over the suit land for the last about 20 years and as such no suit for pre-emption can be filed to pre-empt the sale and that, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents is liable to be dismissed.