SEWANATH (MASTER) Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal directed against the decree of the Addl. District Judge Jammu dated 1st July 1963 whereby he has decreed the suit of the respondents against the appellant on the ground of the right of prior purchase with respect to a house situate in Mohalla Lakhdatta Jammu on payment of Rs. 15,000 within one month of the date of the decree. The vendee -defendant has come up in appeal against this decree.

(2.) THIS suit of the plaintiffs was that the vendee -appellant had purchased the house in dispute by means of three sale deeds dated 22 -6 -60 from defendant No. 2 Madan Lal for a consideration of Rs.15,000. The plaintiffs -respondents had the right of prior purchase with respect to this property on two grounds: first that the property sold was contiguous to their property and secondly that the drain water of the defendants house -hold passed through the compound of the plaintiffs house. Defendant No 2 remained exparte. The first defendant, Sewa Nath, vendee, contested the suit on various grounds. He claimed an equal right with the plaintiffs and denied the right of the plaintiffs on the basis of contiguity as well as easement. Alternatively he prayed that he was a tenant of this property before the sale deeds were executed, and in case of the suit being decreed on the ground of the right of prior purchase of the plaintiffs, his possession should continue as that of a tenant which he held before the sale deeds. He further pleaded that he had effected improvements in the house and in case he was to part with possession, he should be given the cost of the improvements effected by him. He further pleaded waiver on the part of the plaintitfs. In case of a decree he made a claim to the cost of stamps and the registration charges incurred by him in connection with the sales. His further plea was that in any event the plaintiffs were not entitled to any costs even in the case of their success.

(3.) THESE pleadings of the parties gave rise to seven issues. The eighth issue was with respect to the relief that the plaintiffs were entitled to.