ISHWARI SINGH Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for possession of a vacant piece of land with shops and store situate at Purani Mandi Jammu bounded on the North Link Road Purani Mandi and vacant space of Th. Ishwari Singh South lane East vacant place and room of Th. Ishri Singh West Purani Mandi, by the plaintiffs Th. Ishwari Singh and four others sons of The Sant Singh. There is no site plan attached to the plaint nor is the area of the land mentioned therein. This was necessary under O. 7 r. 3 of the Civil P. C. But there is no objection on this score on behalf of the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1, Sumitra Devi, purchased this plot of land from defendants 2 and 3, Govind Singh and Kripa Singh sons of Th. Ajab Singh for a sum of Rs. 28,000 on 8th June 1962 by means of a sale deed executed and registered on the same day, i.e. 8th June 1962. Th. Ajab Singh, father of defendants 2 and 3, had entered into an agreement with the father of the plainriffs with regard to the said property on 14th Jeth 2001 (Bikrami) registered on 13th Sawan 2001 (Bikrami). According to that agreement if either party to the agreement i.e., Ajab Singh or Sant Singh, or their legal representatives ever disposed of their property, it would be sold to the other party to the agreement at a price 25 percent less than the market value. In addition to this agreement the plaintiffs had a preferential right to purchase this property under the Right of Prior Purchase Act because the property was contiguous to the property sold. Further the sold property was servient tenement and the plaintiffs property was dominant tenement. The defendants did not inform the plaintiffs of their intended sale under the agreement and the Right of Prior Purchase Act the plaintiffs had a preferential right to purchase this property and they prayed for possession of the property.

(3.) THE defendants raised a number of pleas in defence. They denied the execution of the agreement and the right of prior purchase of the plaintiffs as contemplated by the Right of Prior Purchase Act. The alleged agreement of 14 -2 -2001 was characterized as illegal and uneforceable. On the ground of contiguity the right of prior purchase could not be claimed as it violated their fundamental rights as given in the Indian Constitution. Even though the plaintiffs did not possess any right of prior purchase, nonetheless they were asked to purchase the property before it was sold by defendants 2 and 3 to defendant 1, but they refused to purchase it. The plaintiffs suit was not bonafide. They had entered into an agreement with Messers Ramchand, Ganesh Das and Girdhari Lal whereby they had agreed to file the suit for acquiring the property for the benefit of Ramchand & others. The plaintiffs had to profiteer out of the bargain. Previously the parties sold portions of the land, but no objection was taken by the plaintiffs. They could not therefore assert their right under the agreement dated 14th Jeth 2001.