AMAR SINGH Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of this petition for revision of the order of the trial Court may first be surveyed, in order to appreciate the solitary jurisdictional question of law on which arguments have been addressed at the hearing of this case. For facility of reference, I will call the parties to this litigation by their titles in the Court of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) MST. Nihali defendant No. 1 sold the land in dispute to Man Singh and his three brothers defendants Nos. 2 to 5 by a registered sale-deed, dated June 8, 1967 for Rs. 18,000/ -. Two days before the sale, i. e. . on June 6, 1967, Nihali executed a registered lease-deed in respect of the land which forms the subject-matter of this litigation, in favour of Amar Singh defendant No. 6, who has been stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents to be the father-in-law of the vendees. Jagdish son of Sadhu filed a suit for possession in the purported exercise of his right of pre-emption against the vendor and the vendees, and also impleaded therein Amar Singh defendant No. 6, the alleged "essee. Subsequently, Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff in the other suit) also filed a suit for possession of the same land in exercise of his right of pre-emption. Lakshmi Chand also impleaded Amar Singh petitioner as a defendant to his suit.

(3.) IN paragraph 4 of the plaint of the suit filed by Jagdish, it was stated as below:-