IMDAD Vs. CHAHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 21.12.1996, whereby the defendant's appeal was accepted and the suit claiming preemption of the land sold on the basis of tenancy was dismissed. The defendant purchased land measuring 4 kanal 10 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 8100/- vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1989. The plaintiff sought to pre-empt the said land claiming to be sitting tenant on the said land from the time of his predecessor-in-interest. The said claim of the plaintiff was resisted by, inter alia, pleading that the sale was effected with the knowledge of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has got no superior right of pre-emption. Both the parties went to the trial on the following issues:

(2.) After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plaintiff was a tenant. The learned Trial Court relied upon jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (Ex. P1) and khasra girdawari (Ex. P2). In the said documents, the plaintiff is recorded to be in possession of the suit land comprising in Rect. No. 109 Khasra No. 7/1 measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas and Khasra No. 6/3 measuring 4 kanals 10 marlas as tenant though the sale was only in respect of land measuring 9 marlas of khasra number 6/3. The learned trial Court found that the copies of jamabandi (Ex. P8) and khasra girdawari (Ex. P7) for the year 1988-99 were supplied to the plaintiff on 10.12.1990, wherein the plaintiff is recorded to be in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant. It is also noticed that the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nuh dated 31.08.1992 (Ex. D3) correcting khasra girdawari in respect of possession of 9 marlas of land comprising in Killa No. 6/3 since Rabi 1991 was passed during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the defendant was not given any benefit of the said order.

(3.) However, in appeal on behalf of the defendant, the first Appellate Court returned a finding that the suit land comprises of Khasra No. 7/1 (3-12) and 6/3 (0-9). The plaintiff-appellant relies upon Exs. P8 to P10 in support of its claim of tenancy over the suit property at the time of sale. In jamabandi (Ex. P9) for the year 1973-74, the possession of Kamrudin, father of the plaintiff, is reflected over khasra No. 6/3 measuring 4 kanals 10 marlas and not over khasra No. 7/1. Infact, Khasra No. 7/1 is reflected to be in cultivating possession of the owner. In view of the said fact and the fact that after the purchase of suit land, the khasra girdawari entries have been corrected on an application filed by the defendant.