AYUB KHAN Vs. DEEP KAMAL CHAWLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of RSA Nos. 1703 and 1824 to 1831 of 1983, as all these cases were disposed of by one judgment by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.

(2.) One Sunder Dass entered into an agreement to sell the suit land on 24th May, 1965 for Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Ayub Khan. Ayub Khan filed a suit for the specific performance of the agreement on 15th October, 1968. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit on Ist of July, 1971. During the pendency of the suit, Sunder Dass defendant had died and his son, Gopal Krishan was brought on the record as his legal representative. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Gopal Krishan filed the appeal. However, in appeal the parties entered into a compromise, by virtue of which an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- was agreed to be paid by the vendee, ayub Khan to Gopal Krishan. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with the compromise. In compliance of the appellate decree, the sale-deed was executed by Gopal Krishan in favour of ayub Khan on 25th June, 1979. In order to pre-empt the said sale, eight suits were filed by rival pre-emptors which were heard by the trial Court and disposed of by one judgment. The suit giving rise to RSA No. 1703 of 1983 was filed on behalf of the sons and the daughters of the vendor, Gopal Krishan, whereas the other suits were filed by the tenants who were occupying the suit land as such. The total land consists of 191 kanals 6 marlas. The defence taken on behalf of the vendee, Ayub Khan, was that the vendor will be deemed to be Sunder Dass and not Gopal Krishan, and, therefore, the daughters of Gopal Krishan had no superior right of pre-emption. Secondly, Ayub Khan was himself tenant on the suit land and, therefore, the sale in his favour was not pre-emptible. Both these contentions were negatived by the Courts below. The trial Court found that the vendee, Ayub Khan, has failed to prove that he was a tenant on the suit land. It was further found that the vendor was Gopal Krishan and not Sunder Dass and, therefore, the daughters of Gopal Krishan were entitled to pre-empt the sale though the suit filed onbehalf of his sons was dismissed as it was held that the property was sold as Manager of the Joint Hindu Family. Dissatisfied with the same, the vendee has filed these second appeals in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the sale-deed was executed in pursuance of the agreement to sell, dated 24th May, 1965, executed by Sunder Dass and, therefore, the sale will be deemed to have been made by Sunder Dass and not by Gopal Krishan. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the suit was filed against Sunder Dass and he died during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court and Gopal Krishan was only impleaded as his legal representative and on that ground also, Gopal Krishan executed the sale deed as legal representative of the Sunder Dass and on that account as well, the vendor will be Sunder Dass and not Gopal Krishan. In support of this contention, reference was made to Gurdial Singh and others v. Sewa Singh and others, 1974 AIR(P&H) 18.