LAWS(P&H)-1984-8-133

UMRAO Vs. NIHALI

Decided On August 03, 1984
UMRAO Appellant
V/S
Nihali Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 552 of 1976 and 597 to 1976, both of which arise out of the same judgment of the trial Court, in the circumstances which are these. Shrimati Dhan Kaur was the owner of 14 bighas 3 biswas of land along with 1/2 share in a well at village Tikli, Tehsil Gurgaon. She leased the land in favour of Umrao Singh (appellant in R.S.A. No. 552 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the lessee) by means of lease deed, dated June 22, 1971. Within less than three months of the said lease, Shrimati Dhan Kaur sold the land in favour of Rai Singh and another (appellants in R.S.A. 597/76, hereinafter referred to as the vendees). Shrimati Nihali and others, daughters of Shrimati Dhan Kaur instituted a suit for pre-emption on the ground that they had a superior right to pre-empt the sale, as against the vendees. They also pleaded that the consideration had been inflated and that the transaction of sale was a fictitious one. They claimed pre-emption of the suit land on payment of Rs. 10,000/- or such amount as the Court deemed proper.

(2.) The suit was not contested by Shrimati Dhan Kaur vendor. However, the vendees as well as the lessee resisted the suit on the basis of their respective titles to the property. In the wake of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed a number of issues to cover the controversial points and after recording findings on these issues on the basis of the material produced by the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the decree for pre-emption was granted only on the basis of symbolic possession of the suit land on payment of Rs. 57,732/-. This was done in view of the concession of the vendees to the effect that the possession of the suit land was with the lessee.

(3.) The judgment and decree of the trial Court gave rise to an appeal by the plaintiffs. The vendees filed cross-objections in the said appeal to contest the findings on issues decided against them. Both these matters were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the decree of the trial Court was modified so as to grant actual possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and against the vendees on payment of the decretal amount. The cross-objections filed by the vendees were, however, dismissed. Against the said decision of the learned Additional District Judge, the present two appeals have been filed, one on behalf of the vendees and the other by the lessee.