SATYA NARAYANI Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-5-97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption with costs.

(2.) The salient facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a civil suit for pre-emption claiming herself as co-sharer of the suit property. It has been averred in the plaint inter alia that Hanuman Prasad respondent No. 1 who had sold the suit property at a consideration of Rupees 35,000/- to Smt. Asha Devi, respondent No. 2, had no right of sale vested in him in view of the fact that the offer regarding sale of the suit property though made to the appellant at the first instance at a lesser consideration of Rupees 20,000/-, yet without giving sufficient time to her, he had sold the suit property to the respondent No. 2 notwithstanding preferential right of the plaintiff for purchase of the same at a lesser consideration as originally agreed to between the parties.

(3.) This claim of the plaintiff was vehemently denied by the respondents on the averments intern alia that though the offer for sale of the suit property was made initially by the respondent No. 1 to the plaintiff in the year 1984 at a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- but since the plaintiff did not have enough funds and she did not confirm by accepting the offer made by the respondent No. 1, nor the acceptance was communicated, the respondent No. 1 had a full lawful right vested in him as the true owner to sell the suit property to the respondent No. 2, who had admittedly offered the sale consideration higher than the plaintiff's offer. Therefore, the offer for sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- having been made and accepted by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 consequently got executed the sale deed of the suit property before the Sub-Registrar, passing thereby valid and lawful title to the respondent No. 2. It was further contended that in any event the right of sale vested with a lawful owner of property could neither be curtailed or scuttled in a manner as it was sought to be done by the plaintiff since it was not his case that he had made payment of consideration either while or in part so as to bind the seller i.e. respondent No. 1 towards him by virtue of any agreement of sale and which was not his case.