JAMNA PANDEY Vs. SAHDEO PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale deed was taken by the plaintiff's elder brother, Ramraj, and two of his nephews along with certain strangers. The plaintiff's allegation was that he was separate from the other members of his family, inasmuch as partition had taken place four or five years earlier. The defence was that the plaintiff had given his consent to the sale, and also that the property had been purchased by the family on behalf of all the members including the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court has found that the oral evidence to prove that the. plaintiff gave his express consent personally to the sale is not satisfactory, and has accordingly not had that the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. It has however found that the plaintiff's case that there was a partition of the family property shortly before the case and that the plaintiff was separate, was not true. It has recorded a definite finding that: the plaintiff is joint in estate with defendant-vendees Ramraj, Basdeo and Ram Naudan.

(2.) It then concluded that: the plaintiff himself stands in the position of a vendee with reference to the properties in I dispute and he cannot therefore be allowed to I claim the right of pre-emption merely on the I ground that his name is not specifically mentioned as a vendee in the sale-deed in question.

(3.) His conclusion obviously is that the family being joint, the presumption of law is that the property which has been I acquired under the sale-deed has been J acquired in the interest of all, and the plaintiff himself has a share in it and that therefore ha is not entitled to preempt this property.