TRIBHUVAN UTTAMRAM Vs. BAI KUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this Second Appeal are these. One Girjashankar made a will in respect of his properties on September 3, 1907, and he appointed the present plaintiffs as executors under that will. He died in October 1907. Thereafter in 1908 a suit was filed by his widow against the present plaintiffs and the present defendant No. 1, who is the sister of Girjashankar. In that suit there was a compromise. In accordance with that compromise, a decree was passed in favour of the then plaintiff, i. e., the widow of Girjashankar, so far as it related to the suit. The rest of the agreement being outside the scope of the suit was not incorporated in the decree. The present defendant No. 1 sold the properties in suit to defendant No. 2 in April 1917.

(2.) Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the present suit in December 1917 with a view to enforce the agreement relating to their right of pre-emption in respect of the two houses in suit.

(3.) The defendants raised various defences, one of which was that the agreement under which the plaintiffs claimed the right of pre-emption required to be registered, and that as it was not registered, it was inadmissible in evidence.