MOHD ASHRAF Vs. MAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR Kanals of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 866/700/150 and 875/700/l50 situate in village Batote, Tehsil Ramban, was sold by Thakur Parshotam Singh son of Thakur Punjab Singh, a Rajput of Jammu, to Sardar Mian Singh, respondent therein, by means of sale deed dated Baisakh 24, 2011 (Samvat). A civil suit being suit No. 16 of 1955 for declaration to the effect that the said land belonged to the joint family consisting of himself and his father, Thakur Parshotam Singh, and since the sale was without -any valid necessity it was void and ineffectual against his rights as also for possession or in the alternative for a decree for possession on the basis of a right of prior purchase, was brought by Bajinder Singh, minor, against his father and Sardar Mian Singh, in the court of the Munsiff, Ramban. Another civil suit for possession of the said land on the basis of a right of prior purchase was brought in the same court by Noor Mohammad, the predecessor. In interest of the petitioners, herein, Vide Order dated March 27, 1959 passed under Section 27 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act, the Munsiff Ramban, joined Noor Mohamad as a party defendant to the aforesaid suit No. 16 of 1965 brought by Bajinder Singh minor. Eventually on November 7, 1967, a compromise was arrived at between Noor Mohammad and Sardar Mian Singh by virtue of which Noor Mohammad agreed to relinquish his right of prior purchase in respect of the aforesaid sale and give up his claim regarding costs incurred by him on the litigation on payment of Rs. 3900 by Mian Singh. Out of this sum, of Rs. 3900, Rs. 70O was paid to Noor Mohamad at the time of the compromise and with regard to the balance of Rs. 3200 it was agreed by Sardar Mian Singh that he would pay Rs. 1500 in the month of January, 1964, and the rest in the month of April, 1964. As Sardar Mian Singh failed to pay any of the aforesaid instalments, Noor Mohamad brought a civil suit, being suit No. 44 of 1966, in the court of the Sub Judge, Ramban, for the recovery of Rs. 3200.

(2.) ON an objection being taken on behalf of Sardar Mian Singh that he being an agriculturist as defined by Section 2 (.) of the Agriculturists Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the suit was triabal under the Act, the trial court framed the following issue : ¢

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence, adduced by the parties in respect of the aforesaid issue the trial court held the defendant to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the aforesaid Section of the Act vide its order dated June 2, 1972.