SURAJ BHANAND Vs. MIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt.Dhodan by separate sale deeds dated. 16.5.1974 sold her land to different vendees. Suraj Bhan and others filed three separate suits to pre-empt those sales on the ground that they were related to the husband of the vendor which matter is no longer in dispute and on the ground that they are tenants and have a right to pre-empt. Both the Courts below dismissed all the suits after recording finding that the plaintiffs were not proved to be tenants and stray entries in their favour during two years recorded in the Jamabandi, could not be relied upon in view of the Jamabandis recorded before and after the Khasra Girdwaris came into being.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the record, I am of the view that the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the pre-emptors have failed to prove their tenancy, is not assailable. In the plaint no definite case as to when the tenancy started, was pleaded but in evidence Suraj Bhan plaintiff as P.W. 6 has stated that the tenancy is from 1964 onwards. The sale took place on 16.5.1974. From 1964 till before kharif 1972, the pre-emptors are not shown in possession of the land in dispute. Exhibit P. 10 is Jamabandi of the years 1970-71 on the file of the suit Suraj Bhan v. Mir Singh and that shows the vendor to be in possession as owners and word 'Kurd Kasnt' of the owner is mentioned. The next Jamabandi is Exhibit D. 10 on the file of the suit Suraj Bhan v. Hukam Singh, for the year 1975-76. That shows the vendees to be in possession as owners. However, for Kharif 1972 and Rabi 1973 in Khasra Girdwari the pre-emptors are shown in possession as Gair Maurusi i.e., tenants at will. There is no contract of tenancy. In the revenue records it is not mentioned as to on what terms the pre-emptors are temamts. There is no receipt of rent. The vendor, who is related to the pre-emptors, has not been produced to prove the tenancy, if any.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.