GOPAL LAL Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 23.07.1983 as passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh camp, Chittorgarh whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the civil suit (C.O No. 44/1979: Old No. 1/1975) filed by the plaintiffs -appellants claiming the right of pre -emption under the provisions of the Rajasthan Pre -emption Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the property purchased by the defendants.

(2.) THE relevant facts and background aspects of the matter could be taken into comprehension thus: The plaintiffs -appellants filed the suit aforesaid on 27.01.1975 with the averments that the defendants had purchased the suit property situated at Sadar Bazar, Chittorgarh from Sukhaji son of Khemaji, Phoolchand son of Sukhaji, and Bhanwarlal son of Sukhaji Jeengar Mochi, resident Ghosunda on 16.02.1974 and got the document registered on 18.02.1974. The plaintiffs stated the description of the suit property as being comprised in two parts: one being that of a shop and two medies thereupon; and second being a room and a medi thereupon, situated towards the northern side of the previously described shop. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had purchased the aforesaid property only for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - but in order to escape pre -emption, stated the consideration at Rs. 33,000/ - in the document of sale. The plaintiffs pointed out that from out of the suit property, the shop at the ground floor was on mortgage with Ugam Bai Pokarna wife of Mishrilal Pokarna for Rs. 8,000/ - and a medi on the shop was on mortgage with Mishrilal Pokarna for Rs. 2,000/ -.

(3.) IT was alleged that the defendants or their vendors did not serve any notice before the disputed sale transaction though the plaintiffs had the pre -emptive right to purchase the suit property. The plaintiffs further averred that they had served a notice upon the defendants requiring them to hand over the suit property after receiving Rs. 25,000/ - but the defendants did not accede to the request.