VED PARKASH Vs. CHHAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal are that Sant Lal sold land measuring 33 Bighas 2 Biswas situate in village Kalupur, Tehsil and District Sonepat in favour of Chhaju Ram by means of a registered sale deed dated 29th June, 1968, which was registered on 5th July, 1968, for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Ved Parkash, claiming himself to be the son of the vendor, filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in dispute. Along with other pleas, Chhaju Ram vendee claimed that he was the tenant of the land in dispute at the time of the sale and thus the sale was not pre-emptible. It has been pleaded that the land in dispute was taken on lease for a period of 30 years from Sant Lal on 21st June, 1968, in the name of Hira Lal and thus the transaction being Benami, in fact the lease was taken by Chhaju Ram vendee. On the basis of this lease deed it has been claimed that Chhaju Ram was the tenant under Sant Lal on the date of the sale. Issue No. 3 reflects that part of the controversy between the parties.

(2.) The learned trial Sub-Judge came to the conclusion that the vendee had proved that a lease deed dated 21st June, 1968 was executed by the vendor in favour of Hira Lal who was the Benamidar for Chhaju Ram and in fact vide receipt Exhibit D.2 dated 28th June, 1968, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by Chhaju Ram to Sant Lal vendor and that Chhaju Ram entered into possession of the land as a lessee before the sale deed was registered. Accordingly a finding was recorded that the vendee was a tenant under the vendor at the time of the sale and thus the sale in question could not be pre-empted.

(3.) The first Appellate Court, on an appeal having been filed by the plaintiff-pre-emptor, endorsed the finding recorded by the trial Court that Chhaju Ram vendee paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as lease money to Sant Lal vendor vide receipt Exhibit D.2 dated 28th June, 1968. However, it was held by the learned first Appellate Court that the possession of the land was transferred to Chhaju Ram under the lease deed Exhibit D.1, dated 21st June, 1968, and, therefore, the lease was a sham transaction. It was accordingly held that since Chhaju Ram was not in possession of the land in pursuance of the lease deed on the date of the sale, therefore, he was not a tenant of the land in dispute. On this finding having been recorded, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.