KHAZAN SINGH Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. 1 The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, by a sale-deed, dated the 15 of July 1920, transferred their shares in village Badnauli in Tahsil Hapur, district Meerut, in favour of two sets of defendants. Half of the property was transferred to defendants Nos. 3 to 7 and the other half to defendants Nos. 8 to 12. There is a clear specification of this in the sale-deed. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that under a custom of pre- emption existing in the village they were entitled to pre-empt as against the defendants who were strangers to the mahal. As to the sale consideration it was alleged that out of the sum shown before the Sub-Registrar a sum of Rs. 2,000 was actually returned afterwards and was a fictitious item. It was further asserted that the property sold covered standing sugarcane crop of the value of Rs. 1,500 which had since been appropriated by the vendees.

(2.) The defendants vendees denied the existence of any custom of pre-emption and also asserted that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was true. We may note that a considerable portion of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was left in the hands of the vendees for payment to certain specified creditors.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the evidence produced by the plaintiff's is insufficient to establish that a custom of pre-emption existed in this village. On this finding the suit has been dismissed in toto. He has, however, gone on to record findings on the other issues which arose in the case and has come to the conclusion that it is not established by the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs. 2,000 was returned by the vendors after registration. He has also come to the conclusion that the value of sugarcane crop was only Rs. 1,000 and not Rs. 1,500, and therefore, Rs. 1,000 would have to be deducted from the sale consideration. There was also an allegation by the plaintiffs that the defendants vendees had cut away certain trees of wild growth worth Rs. 150, but this was not substantiated by any evidence.