FATEH SINGH Vs. HET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Fateh Singh, who was one of the defendants in the suit, has filed the present appeal against the judgment of reversal made by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff -respondent Het Ram.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Rati Ram who was the original owner of the suit land measuring 19 Kanals 11 Marlas sold the same to Fateh Singh vide sale deed dated 20.3.1986. This sale deed was challenged by way of a suit for pre -emption by Het Ram who claimed that he had the pre -emptive right to purchase the land in question as he had been a tenant thereon for almost 15 years. In reply to the notices issued in the suit, the vendee i.e. Fateh Singh denied that Het Ram was a tenant on the land in question and as such entitled to pre -empt the sale. The trial Court after a minute appreciation of the evidence came to conclusion that the reliance of the pre -emptor on the Khasra girdawari of the year 1986 for the hari crop or on the affidavit sworn by the vendor Rati Ram admitting Het Ram to be his tenant after the sale, was misconceived. The Court observed that the Khasra girdawari in question was recorded shortly before the sale and as such could not be relied upon and that the evidence of Rati Ram vendor was also not liable to be believed as his stand had been vacillating throughout as he had at one stage dined the tenancy of the pre -emptor whereas in the affidavit sworn in the suit he had deposed that the pre -emptor had been a tenant on the land for a long period of time. The trial Court also held that the Khasra girdawari (Exhibit P -3) was void ab initio as it had changed the name of the pre -emptor without giving notice to the earlier tenant Rotan Singh who had been recorded as a tenant thereon.

(3.) IT has been argued by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the only point which had been argued before the first appellate Court was with regard to issue No. 1 and all other matters had been given up. He has argued that the documents relied upon by the lower appellate Court did not prove the tenancy of the pre -emptor as the Khasra girdawari for the crop of hari 1986, on which primary reliance had been placed, was recorded shortly before the date of the sale on 20.3.1986. He has also urged that no reliance could be placed on the nehri girdawaris (Exhibits P -5 to P -11) as in some of them the details with regard to the land had not been mentioned whereas in the others the pre -emptor has been shown as the owner of the land and not as a tenant thereon. The objection with regard to Exhibits P -13 to P -17 was that the land in question had not been identified in these documents and in view of the above no reliance could be placed on Exhibits P -20 and P -21 as well. Supporting the judgment of the trial Court, counsel has urged that the affidavit of the vendor Rati Ram (Exhibit P -22) could not be relied upon as he had been taking a vacillating stand on different occasions inasmuch as that he had denied the tenancy of the pre -emptor at one stage and admitted the same on other occasions.