MOMAN RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. HANUMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by Moman Ram and Ram Rattan plaintiff's against the judgment dated 6th August. 1971 of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, by which he accepted the appeal of the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs -appellants but left the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that the land in suit measuring 62 Kanals 1 Marla fully described in the plaint situated in the area of village Siswal, Tehsil and District Hissar belonged to Hanuman, Respondent No. 1, who sold the same to Ram Chander Udmi and Bal Ram, Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for Rs. 23.000/ - on the basis of registered sale deed dated 27th February, 1967. Mom an Ram and Ram Rattan filed suit for possession by pre -emption of this land on the allegations that they being co -sharers in this land with the vendor and that Ram Rattan plaintiff was the fathers brother of the vendor and Moman plaintiff was the father's brother's son of the vendor, their right of preemption was superior to that of the vendees, who were strangers. It was averred that sale took place for Rs. 15.000/ - only and the remaining amount was mentioned In the sale deed to deter the pre -emptors.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. It was held that the sale took place for Rs. 23,000/ - and issue No. 2 was decided accordingly and no finding was given on issue No. 3 It was held that Onkar Singh was the real purchaser and defendants Nos. 2 to 4, who were his minor sons were Benamidars far him and issue No. 4 was decided accordingly. It was held that Onkar Singh was not a tenant of this land under the vendor on the date of sale and so issue No. 5 was decided against the defendants. Issues 'Nos. 6 and 8 were also decided against the defendants. On issue No 7, it was held that the vendees were entitled to the expenses incurred by them on the execution and registration of the sale deed. Issues Nos. 9 and 9 -A were also decided against the defendants. As a result, the plaintiffs were granted decree for possession by preemption of the land in suit against the vendees on payment of Rs. 24,622.50, which amount consisted of Rs. 23,000/ - as the sale price and Rs. 1622 50 as the expenses incurred for the execution and registration of the sale deed Feeling aggrieved, Onkar Singh, defendant No. 5 and his three sons, vendees -defendants 2 to 4 filed an appeal against this decree in the Court of the District Judge which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Hissar. The decision of the trial Court on issues Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6. 7 and 8 was not contested before the Additional District Judge by the appellants. He affirmed the findings of the trial Court on issues No. 1 and 5. However, on issues Nos. 9 and 9 -A, he held that the suit was barred by limitation because Onkar Singh defendant, who was the real purchaser was made a party to the suit after the expiry of the period of limitation. As a result, he accepted the appeal of the vendees defendants and set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, Moman Ram and Ram Rattan plaintiffs filed this sec and appeal in the High Court.