RAJINDER PARSBAD Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit to pre-emption the sale of 10 kanals 15 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Assandh, District Karnal.

(2.) The sale deed was executed on July 22, 1983. The suit was filed on the basis that the plaintiff was the co-sharer in the suit land as well as on the basis that he was the vendor's brother. The suit was contested on behalf of the vendees-defendants. It was denied that the plaintiff was the brother and the co-sharer in the suit land, as claimed However, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated June 14, 1985. decreed the plaintiffs suit on payment of Rs. 46,300/- dissatisfied with the same, the vendees filed the appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Karnal. During the pendency of that appeal, the defendants moved an application for Amendment of the written statement so as to plead that the property was situated within the municipal limits of Assand town and, therefore, was not pre-emptible. It was also sought to be pleaded that the defendants had raised two residential rooms over the site. Therefore, on that ground also, the suit was liable to be dismissed The said amendment of the written statement was Allowed by the lower appellate Court on payment of Rs. 150/- as costs. Consequently, two additional issues were framed, which read as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that once the parties had entered into the compromise and the compromise was upheld by the lower appellate. Court vide detailed order dated October 23, 1986, there was no occasion for the lower appellate Court to re-decide the matter and to accept the appeal. According to the learned counsel, even file notification dated October 3, 1985, was prospective in operation and, therefore, the suits filed earlier were not affected thereby. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the said notification was there when the parties had entered into the Compromise on October 23, 1986, and, therefore, there was no occasion for the lower appellate Court to set aside the compromise, particularly when the same had been upheld earlier vice order dated October 23, 1986. According to the learned Counsel, the question decided vide order dated October 23, 1986, had become final and will operate as res judicata between the parties.