RAM SINGH Vs. KALLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vendee-defendant, in the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the land in dispute by way of pre-emption, moved an application for amendment of the written statement to take a fresh plea that the plaintiff being the real brother of the vendor, was not entitled to pre-empt the sale in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish and others v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal and others, 1967 AIR(SC) 1606 The trial Court declined the prayer holding that the vendor was adopted son of Shrimati Madi which fact stood admitted, having been not denied in the written statement. Aggrieved thereby, the vendee has come up in this revision.

(2.) I have perused the avernment in the plaint where it is stated that Ram Narian vendor, was the adopted son of Shrimati Madi. This fact was not denied in the written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, urges that as it was not of any significance at the time when the written statement was filed, so no specific denial was made in this regard. If the matter was confined only to the plaint, the argument of the learned counsel might have carried some weight. Even in the sale deed the vendor is described as the adopted son of Shrimati Madi, which would amount to an admission on the part of the vendee, he being a signatory to the deed. That apart, even in the Jamabandi he is mentioned as the adopted son of Shrimati Madi. The plaintiffs has also shown me a copy of the original mutation under which the estate of Shrimati Madi was mutated in the name of the vendor as her adopted son more than four decades back in the year 1939. In the face of these circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that the vendee defendant only wanted to delay the proceedings and the application had been made mala fide, is well founded. No ground, therefore, has been made out to interfere in revision and this petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.