BALBIR SINGH Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question as to whether sake as per sale-deed executed by a commissioner appointed by the Court in favour of a decree-holder an agreement to sell is preemption arises for determination on the regular second appeal filed by the defendants Balbir Singh and his three younger brothers against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge Faridkot.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Mohinder Sigh was the owner of the land in dispute meaning 40 Bighas situated in village Ramiana District Bhatinda. On 21st december, 1954, Mohinder Singh failed to executed the sale-deed in accordance with the agreement to sell the appellants brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. In the aforesaid suit a decree was awarded in favour of the appellants on the 19th April, 1958 as per judgment copy of which is Exhibit D. W. 8/3. It was ordered that Mohinder Singh did not execute the sale-deed in compliance with the decree that learned Subordinate Judge appointed his Reader tulsi Ram commissioner to execute the sale deed is favour of the appellants. Accordingly on 8th March, 1960 Tulsi Ram executed sale deed Exhibit D. W. 8/1 in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the appellants. The sale-deed was also got registered the same day On the 7th March, 1961 Kulwant Singh respondent brought the present suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in dispute on the ground that he had a superior right of pre-emption because he was collateral of Mohinder Singh vendor and was also cosharer of the land in dispute. The sale price of Rs. 5,500, mentioned in the sale deed according to the plaintiff was excessive and had not been paid or fixed in good faith.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that the sale was not pre-emption because it tool place under the order so the Court. The suit was stated to be liable to be dismissed because the appellants were the tenants of the land in dispute at the item of its sale. The appellants maintained that the sale price of Rs. 5,500 had been paid and fixed in good faith. Plea of limitation was also raised.