DHARAM PAL Vs. NEK CHAND DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11. 9. 1987 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 1. 4. 1987 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession by way of pre-emption.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed their suit for possession by way of pre-emption of agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Budanpur, Tehsil and District Karnal and the land measuring 16 Marias also situated in the same village, fully described in the head-note of the plaint and the case set up by the plaintiffs was that one Mangal Lal son of Bhajan Lal, defendant No. 3 was the owner of the agricultural land. Said Mangal Lal sold away the above mentioned agricultural land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 namely Dharam Pal and Prem Ram (now appellants) for a sum of Rs. 6600/- by way of registered sale deed dated 19. 5. 1981. According to the plaintiffs, the sale price is fictitiously got entered in the sale deed as RS. 12,000/- in order to ward off the right of pre-emption. In fact, the agreed consideration was Rs. 6600/ -. The defendants did not serve any notice upon the plaintiffs as required Under Section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and had kept the sale transaction as secret. Plaintiff No. 1 had superior right of pre-emption being, tenant of agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 6 marlas and plaintiff No. 2 had superior right of pre-emption being tenant over 16 marlas fully described in the plaint. The plaintiffs remained as tenants being Gair Marussi on their respective parcels of the land and they requested the defendants-vendees to admit their claim and to transfer the land purchased by them for a consideration of Rs. 6600/- but they-have refused to do so.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement in which they reiterated their stand as taken in the plaint while denying the allegations those in the written statement. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :