SOBHRAJ MAL Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sobhrajmal and the other legal representatives of Tulsidas have filed this appeal against the judgment and the decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City dated 18th Jan., 1973 decreeing the suit of respondent Mst. Kamla Devi for pre-emption.

(2.) Tulsidas and his son Sobhraj Mal purchased a portion of the disputed house from Geodilal and others who were the owners of that house. The sale-deed was executed on 31st Dec., 1969. It is admitted by the parties that before the sale of the portion of the house the owners did not give any notice under Sec. 8 the Rajasthan Pre emption Act, 1966 to any of the pre-emptors including the plaintiff Smt Kamla Devi. It is however admitted by the parties that before the sale had actually taken place the purchaser. Tulsi Das got a general notice published in a newspaper showing his intention to purchase the disputed property After about ten months from the date of the sale Smt. Kamla Devi filed a suit on 19th Oct., 1970 both against the purchasers and the sellers alleging that the price of the property as shown in the sale-deed was inflated, real price being Rs. 11,000.00 and, therefore, she prayed that a decree in her favour may be passed declaring that she had a right of pre emption in respect of the suit property and that it may be directed that her name may be substituted as the purchaser of the said property in place of the defendants purchasers in the sale-deed.

(3.) Tulsi Das during the pendency of the suit died and, therefore, his legal representatives defendants No. 1/1 to 1/8 were brought on the record. The purchaser defendants in their written statements pleaded that the plaintiff was sounded by Tulsi Das before the sale had actually taken place and it was on the assurance given to the purchasers by Smt. Kamla Devi and her husband that after publishing a general notice they purchased the property for Rs. 17,000/. It was also averred that after the sale was completed the purchaser defendants spent something ten to eleven thousands rupees on the repairs of the property which was in dilapidated condition and it was at the fag end of the repairs that the plaintiff filed the suit for per-emption when she saw that the defendants had already invested a good deal of amount in the repairs of the house. The bona fides of the plaintiff were, therefore, challenged by the defendants and it was averred that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming a right of pre-emption in the circumstances of this case.