AMRO DEVI Vs. RATTAN LAL (PROF )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff -appellant being the tenant of the house had a right of prior purchase of the property sold by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 27 August, 1982, was filed in the trial court of Addl - District Judge, Jammu who vide his judgement and decree dated: 17th March, 1986 dismissed the same mainly on the ground that the plaintiff -appellant had waived her right of prior purchase and was, therefore, not entitled te maintain the suit. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the trial court, the appellant filed CIA No.23 of 1986 which was heard by Honâ„¢ble Shah and Honâ„¢ble Bhat J.J and in view of the conflicting views expressed by them, the case was referred to me under rule 23 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules after framing the following points of difference for my consideration.

(2.) SOME of the facts, necessary for appreciating the points referred to me are that the appellant was a tanant of the house in dispute for a period of over 16 years and paying Rs.15/ -per month as rent. Respondent No.2 sold the disputed house to respondent No.1 vide sale deed dated 27th August, 1982. The plaintiff -appellant claimed a right of prior purchase being a tenant and sought declaration to be substituted as vendee in place of respondent No.1. The property was sold for a sumofRs. 35,0001 - which was disputed by the appellant who submitted that the actual price paid was only Rs.22,000/ -. The respondents resisted the suit on various grounds and pleaded that the appellant had waived the right of prior purchase and was not justified to challenge the sale deed by means of the suit. It was further submitted that the respondent No.2 sent a notice in writing informing the appellant that the house was being sold - for a sum of Rs. 35,000/ - and if she was prepared, the same could be sold to her. Despite service of the notice, the appellant is alleged to have not accepted the offer to buy the house.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court vide its order dated 20th Sept. 1934 framed the following issues: -