SMT. VIRAN BAI Vs. SMT. NATHO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit filed by Smt. Natho, respondent, to pre -empt the sale of the agricultural land in dispute made by her father for Rs. 51,500 - vide registered sale deed dated October 19, 1973. In defence, the vendee appellant denied that the plaintiff was daughter of the vendor and in case of suit being decreed, claimed certain amounts by way of improvements and Rs. 1,410/ - on account of stamps and registration charges After recording evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was daughter of the vendor and upheld her preferential right. The claim of the vendee regarding improvements and stamp and registration charges was rejected for want of evidence. On appeal, the findings of the trial Court were confirmed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated February 4, 1978 and the decree confirmed. Still dissatisfied, the vendee, Smt. Viran Bai, has come up in this second appeal.

(2.) THE finding that the plaintiff is daughter of the vendor is a finding of fact but the same has been sought to be challenged on the ground that the statement of Atam Dev son of the appellant has not been taken into consideration by either of the two Courts below. This witness stated that he was known to the family of the vendor and Smt. Natho was not daughter of Lehri vendor. I am afraid that this statement would not he admissible under any provision of the Evidence Act. Otherwise also an simple denial is hardly of any evidentiary value, There is this no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in this second appeal.

(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this appeal is partially allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are modified to the extent stated above, Consequently, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the said land on payment of Rs. 11,500/ - on account of sale consideration and Rs. 1,400/ - on account of stamp and registration charges minus one -fifth sale amount already deposited by her. As the decree holder had been allowed to withdraw the amount, she may now re -deposit the amount on or before November 30, 1979 if the amount is not so deposited, the suit of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been dismissed. No costs