REHTU RAM Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. First of all it has been urged by Mr. Aggarwal that since the plaintiff-respondent could not claim the right of pre-emption on the ground of consagunity under Section 15(2) of the Punjab Pre-emtpion Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana she could not stake her claim for pre-emption as a co-sharer under clause Fourthly of Section 15(1) ibid. I do not find any force in this contention for the reason that the claim of the plaintiff was exclusively based on the ground that she is a co-sharer in the land a part of which was the subject-matter of sale.

(2.) Secondly, it has been urged that the plaintiff was estopped from bringing the suit because of her act and conduct and issue No. 10 framed by the trial Court ought to have been decided in favour of the appellant in view of the evidence on the record. I find from the judgment of the trial Court that issue No. 10 was not pressed by the counsel for the appellant before it. Again no argument appears to have been addressed before the first Appellate Court on this point. The discussion was solely confined to issue No. 1. Sitting in second appeal, I do not consider it proper to appreciate the evidence on the record on issue No. 10 for the time.

(3.) Thirdly, Mr. Aggarwal has pointed out that the suit for pre-emption has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff subject to payment of Rs. 84,810/- inclusive of the amount already deposited as 1/5th of pre-emption amount. On correct calculation the decree ought to have been passed subject to payment of Rs. 85,810/-. Mr. K.C. Puri, appearing on behalf of the respondent has fairly conceded that there is an arithmetical mistake committed by the trial Court which also did not come to light before the first Appellate Court.