PRAVEEN SAHANI Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants-appellants seek to quash the judgment and decree dated 3-7-1999 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur decreed the suit of pre-emption in respect of the suit property. The parties shall be referred hereinafter in the same manner as they were arrayed in the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff Smt. Sushila Devi filed a civil suit on 24-1-1996 with the averments that three storied house No. 515 is situated at Namak-ki-Mandi, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, which has been shown in the map annexed to the plaint. The property shown in yellow colour in the annexed map belongs to the plaintiff, the property shown in red colour belongs to the defendant No. 2 Smt. Prem Devi, the property shown in green colour belongs to one Sh. Kaluram and the area shown in blue colour belongs jointly to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2 and Kaluram. The property shown in the red colour was sold by the second defendant to the first defendant, Kumari Praveen Sahni vide a registered sale deed dated 8-3-1995 for a consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that the has got a right of preemption on account of having common portions in the said house and no notice as provided under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Preemption Act, 1966 (in short the Act) was given to her by the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff, thereafter, prayed for a decree of pre-emption in respect of the suit property.

(3.) The defendants in their joint written statement while admitting that the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption in respect of the suit property pleaded that the plaintiff was asked to purchase the suit property by the defendant No. 2 but she refused to purchase it. A public notice was also published in Rajasthan Patrika on 4-9-1994 for selling the said property and a copy of the said newspaper was also sent to the plaintiff. This property was sold with the knowledge of the plaintiff since beginning and she was aware of the fact that the defendant No.1 is going to purchase the suit property from the defendant No. 2. It was also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 has spent a sum of rupees about 50,000/- in repair and construction after purchase, hence the plaintiff is estopped to claim her right of pre-emption.