SHER SINGH Vs. PRITHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 1493, 1494 and 1495 of 1984 as common questions of law and facts are involved and these are being disposed by a single judgment. The unsuccessful plaintiff pre-emptors have come up in regular second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate Court which negatived their claim for pre-empting the suit land.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are not in dispute and may be stated thus : In R.S.A. 1493 of 1984 arising out of Civil Suit No. 434-I of 7.9.1981, Sunder Lal son of Tulsi Ram landowner sold 88 Kanals 14 Marlas of land to Pirthi Singh, Ram Kishan, Dhupa, Om Parkash, Prem son of Sahi Ram for Rs. 66,000/- vide sale-deed dated June 16, 1981. In R.S.A. 1494 of 1984, arising out of Civil Suit No. 432-I of 7.9.1981, the same landowner sold 27 kanals of land to Mohinder Singh, Sunehra Singh, Prem Singh for Rs. 20,500/- vide sale deed dated May 14, 1981. In R.S.A. No. 1495 of 1984, arising out of Civil Suit No. 433-I of 7.9.1981 the same landowner sold 16 Kanals of land to Sahab Singh, Kitab Singh Satbir Singh and Balbir Singh. In the first suit Sher Singh and other plaintiffs seek to pre-empt the land in its entirely and in the second and third suits, 8 Kanals out of 16 Kanals and 39 Kanals and 19 Marlas out of 88 Kanals and 14 Marlas respectively, purchased by the defendant-vendees on the ground that they having got a preferential right of pre-emption as they were in cultivating possession of the land as tenants under the vendor prior to the impugned sales of the suit-lands. The defendant-vendees resisted the suits by denying that the plaintiffs were in occupation of the suit-land as tenants under the vendor. They also pleaded that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit by their acts and conduct; that the suits are bad for partial preemption. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed in Civil Suit No. 432-I titled Sher Singh and others v. Mohinder Singh and others :-

(3.) The learned trial Judges decreed the suits. On appeal, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court under issue No. 1 and held that the plaintiff pre-emptors had failed to prove that they were in cultivating possession as tenants under the owner at the time either prior or subsequent to the impugned sales of the suit-lands.