ABDULLA AVJAL MOMIN Vs. ISMAIL MUGAL FODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued to have their right of per-emption enforced as regards the plaint house sold to the first defendant by the second defendant, on their paying the sale to defendant No. 1. The only issue in the trial Court was whether the plaintiffs had performed all the ceremonies required of safldari. That was found in the negative and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) In the first appeal the issues for decision were (1) whether the lower Court erred in holding that the two demands were not made in this case, and that the first demands was not expressly referred to at the time of making the second demand ;(2) whether it erred inholding that plaintiff No. 2 must have known Of the sale during the absence of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 and that he was in the town of Godhra then.

(3.) These are purely issues of fact and were both found in the affirmative, and the Court reversing the decree of the trial Court directed that on the plaintiffs paying to defendant No, 1 Rs, 1,900 together with the cost of the suit defendant No,1 should pass a sale-deed with respect to the plaint house and that if he faild to do so, within a month after the service of a notice to him through the Court, the plaintiff should be at liberty to deposit the money in Court and ask for the execution of the sale-deed by the Court, The appellate Judge said; The undisputed fact of the case are that an oral accompanied by delivery of possession and receipt of Rs, 1,900 as purchase money was effected with regard to the plaint house some time befor the 15 February 1917, the date of the notices Exhibits 27 and 29, and that the sale was notified to the Municipality for the prupose of mutation of names on the 26 Fabury 1917.