RADHEY SHYAM Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-9-1996 of learned Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur rejecting the civil suit No. 192/1995 (233/82) filed by the plaintiff Radhey Shyam against the defendants Vinod Kumar and Amal Kumar Choudhary claiming the right of pre-emption in respect of a portion of residential house situated at Chokdi Topkhana, Rasta Sahveeldaran Bhura Tiba, Jaipur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the said residential house was owned by two persons jointly i. e. Smt. Sushila Devi and defendant No. 2 Amal Kumar Choudhary who are related, Sushila Devi being the sister-in-law (Bhabhi of Amal Kumar Choudhary ). ACCORDING to the plaintiff Radhey Shyam, Smt. Sushila Devi agreed to sell her southern part of the said residential house to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 15-6-78 and under the said agreement, possession of the said portion of house was given to the plaintiff- appellant. On 15-5-1981 the registered sale-deed was also executed in his favour and thus he became co-sharer of the said property along with the defendant No. 2 Amal Kumar Choudhary. Further according to the plaintiff, on 21-5-1981, defendant No. 2 Amal Kumar Choudhary sold his share i. e. Northern part of the residential house to the defendant No. 1 Vinod Kumar S/o Prem Shankar Tikiwal without any notice to the plaintiff though the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption being co-sharer of the property and thus his pre-emption rights namely right to be substituted in place of defendant No. 1 at the same consideration for sale of property at which it was sold to defendant No. 1 and, therefore, cause of action to file the suit arose to the plaintiff and, accordingly suit was filed claiming the aforesaid right of pre-emption.

(3.) HOWEVER since the issue No. 2 has been decided against the plaintiff by the learned trial Court holding that the plaintiff had waived his right and had acquiesced in the matter, therefore, on the principles of estopple he has no right to be substituted in the conveyance deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. Thus the issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiff and the appeal is directed on this issue only.