JAI BHAGWAN Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/plaintiff is in second appeal assailing judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court whereby an appeal filed by respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 has been accepted. Judgment as well as decree passed by Trial Court has been set aside and suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts, in brief, may be noticed.

(3.) Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of sale deed dtd. 20/5/1986, Mark-A, for land measuring 13 kanals 11 marlas (hereinafter referred to as "suit land") located in the revenue estate of village Pota, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh, which was sold for a consideration of Rs.49,000.00. It has been averred that defendants No.3 to 5/respondents No.3 to 5, who were owners of the suit land, sold it to defendants No.1 and 2 (for short "contesting defendants") vide registered sale deed dtd. 20/5/1986. It has been alleged that actual sale consideration was Rs.39,000.00 and an inflated amount has been deliberately shown. Claiming to be a co-sharer in the suit land and alleging that no notice was issued to him, plaintiff filed the suit. Upon being served, suit was opposed by contesting defendants, whereas the other defendants were given up by the plaintiff. Besides taking various preliminary objections, the said defendants have averred that plaintiff was not the adopted son of Sheo Chand. A stand has been taken that the suit land has been partitioned and the right of pre-emption, if any, has since been extinguished. It has been submitted that they have spent Rs.10,000.00 on bringing about improvement of the land and in case the suit is decreed, they are also entitled to stamp and registration charges to the tune of Rs.8,000.00. Plaintiff filed a replication re-asserting the claim. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues. After the parties led evidence and were heard, suit was accepted by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 15/3/1990. Appeal preferred by contesting defendants was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnual, vide impugned judgment and decree dtd. 15/1/1991. Alongwith the instant appeal, plaintiff has filed an application (CM-4144-C-2024) for additional evidence for placing on record two orders passed by the revenue authorities as Annexures A-1 and A-2. This application is being contested by the respondents and alongwith their reply, they have annexed orders, Annexures R-1 to R-5, by the authorities, which according to them, are necessary for the decision of the appeal.