ANIL KUMAR Vs. ARUN PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Civil Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 30.5.1985 passed by the learned District Judge Udhampur whereby the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1989 passed by learned Sub -Judge Udhampur has been upheld and Civil Ist Appeals of the appellant have been dismissed. The appeals have been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) THE brief narration of the basic facts involved is that defendants 2&3, Jai Parkash and Rajinder Parkash, who are real brothers of Sukhdev Singh, original plaintiff and predecessor -in -interest of the present appellants, were absolute owners of the land measuring 2 -kanal 13 Marias comprising in survey Nos. 332/300/20/104/65, situate at village Sujalta, Tehsil Udhampur which was sold by them to Arum Kumar, defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 20.7.1983. The sale deed is the subject matter of CSA 30/95. Likewise Smt. Bhagwanti, the mother of defendants 2&3 and original plaintiff in CSA 31/95 was absolute owner of the land measuring 11 -marla comprising in khasra No. 202/199/184/65. She sold that land vide sale deed 29.7.1983 to defendant No. 1 Arun Kumar. Smt. Bhagwanti was also absolute owner of the land measuring 2 -kanal comprising in survey No. 202/199/184/65. The defendants 2&3, her son, Jai Parkash and Rajinder Parkash were occupancy tenants in the said land. Vide sale deed dated 29.7.1983 Smt. Bhagwanti sold her ownership rights while defendants 2&3 sold tenancy rights to Arun Kumar defendant No. 1. Thus vide aforesaid three sale deed three pieces of land were purchased by Arun Kumar defendant No. 1 on 29.7.1983 and came in possession thereof.

(3.) RIGHT of pre -emption as envisaged by Section 14(c) firstly could be exercised by the owners of the Mahal wherein such agricultural land or the property, the subject matter of sale, was situated. Defendant No. 1 Arun Kumar with a view to defeat the right of pre -emption of the plaintiff Sukhdev Singh under clause (c) firstly obtained a gift of the land in the same khewat out of which the land stood sold to him vide sale deeds in issue. Plaintiff by an independent suit challenged the gift deed which had been executed in favour of defendant No. 1 but his suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff remained unsuccessful in civil first appeal before the District Judge. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal he came up in Civil Second Appeal No. 33/95 in this court which was also dismissed by this court vide its judgment dated 20.2.2001. While dismissing the appeal of the appellant Sukhdev Singh the number of the appeal came to be reflected as CSA 35/1995 due to clerical/typographical error. Same was corrected by order dated 16.7.2001 whereby it was ordered that instead of CSA 35/1995 it be read as CSA 33/1995. The plaintiff -appellant challenged the judgment dated 20.2.2001 before the Supreme court but the Supreme Court upheld the order of this court and thereby judgment dated 20.2.2001 attained finality. The effect of dismissal of the appeal and the suit of the plaintiff was that that he was not entitled to claim possession on the basis of right of prior purchase Under Section 14(c) firstly. Therefore in the three suits filed by him the only ground surviving pertained to clause 14(a) secondly. Section 14 (a) secondly of the Right of Prior Purchase Act 1993 reads as under: -