KEHAR SINGH Vs. MANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Plaintiff preemptor's second appeal whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) By means of a registered sale deed dated 18th Dec., 1968, Smt. Jeeto daughter of Sarup sold 8 bighas 11 biswas of land in favour of Mange and Hari Kishan defendants in equal shares for sate consideration of Rs. 9,000/-. Kehar Singh Plaintiff-preemptor claimed superior right of preemption on the ground that be was the vendor's father's real brother. Originally the suit was filed on 17th Dec., 1969. The vendees contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was not related to the vendor as claimed and that the suit was barred by time. If was also pleaded that Hari Kishan defendant was minor and he was wrongly used as a major and that at the time the amendment of the plaint was sought to sue him through guardian ad item on 22nd Dec., 1969, the suit as against him had become time barred and, therefore, the suit must fail on that. ground atone. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had a superior right of preemption as against the defendants. However, the suit was held to have been filed after limitation. The plea of the defendant-vendees that they were in cultivating possession as tenants under the vendor at the time of sale was negatived. Moreover, the defendant-vendees were held entitled to registration expenses et cetera in the amount of Rs. 1001/- in case the suit was to be decreed. However, in view of the finding on the question of limitation the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers) affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaint was presented on 17th Dec., 1969 to the Reader of the Court because the Presiding Officer was on leave and he directed the counsel for the Plaintiff to present the same before the Naib Tehsildar who was competent to entertain the same. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the suit was filed within limitation and it could not be held to be barred by time because the Presiding officer entertained the same on 22nd Dec., 1969. Reference was made to Rule 7(c) of Chapter 1-B of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, which is to the following effect:-