MT CHUNMUN KUARI Vs. JAGOTBALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation has bad a chequered history. It arose out of a sale which was carried out on the 16 of June 1920. The sale was of property in three villages in the Gorakhpur District and the vendors were persons against whom a decree for sale on a mortgage had been obtained. The property was sold on the date above mentioned to the decree-holders, two ladies named Mt. Chunmun Kunwar and Mt. Murat Kunwar, and in the sale-deed it was stated that although the actual value of the property sold was not more than Rs. 1,000, nevertheless as an act of grace, the purchasers were willing to give the vendors credit for the sum of Rs. 1,500 in part satisfaction of the decree existing against the vendors at that time which was on the point of execution.

(2.) Three suits were brought to pre-empt this sale. The first of them was brought by Jagatbali and others (Suit No. 243 of 1921). A month later two other suits were filed respectively by Basant Lal and Dhanpat Lal; Basant Lal's suit was No. 316 of 1921 and Dhanpat Lal's suit was No. 320 of 1921. All these three cases were consolidated and tried together in a Court of the Munsif. The result was that the suit of Basant Lal,. No. 316 of 1921, was dismissed altogether. He thereupon disappeared from the litigation for he did not appeal. As regards the other two suits the Munsif gave a sort of consolidated decree. He was of opinion that Jagatbali and others, the plaintiffs in Suit No. 243 of 1921, had a better right to pre-emption than the plaintiff Dhanpat Lal in Suit No. 320 of 1921, although Dhanpat Lal, he found, had also a better right to take the property than the vendees. He gave a decree providing that Jagatbali and his co-plaintiffs should, in the first instance exercise their right to pre-empt. In default of Jagatbali and his co-plaintiffs exercising their right he declared that Jagatbali and others and the rival pre-emptor Dhanpat Lal should be entitled to pre-empt in equal share, each depositing one-half of the pre-emption money, and in default of Jagatbali and his co-plaintiffs depositing their half-share Dhanpat Lal was to be entitled to preempt the whole. Another dispute in the Court of first instance was regarding the amount of the sale consideration. The Munsif was of opinion that the real consideration was only Rs. 1,0.00.

(3.) After the suit had been decided in the Munsif's Court there were two appeals to the Court of the District Judge. Mt. Chunmun Kunwar and her co-vendee appealed against the decree in Suit No. 243 of 1921, that is to say, the suit in which Jagatbali and others were plaintiffs. Mt. Chunmun Kunwar and her co- purchaser did not appeal against the decree in Suit No. 320 of 1921, in which Dhanpat Lal was the plaintiff.