KUBER SINGH Vs. JAI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought a pre-emption suit and in his plaint he omitted to say in what mahal the property which he desired to pre-empt was situated. He mentioned at the end of the plaint seven mauzas and one patti in those seven mauzas and in para. 2 of the plaint he stated that the plaintiff and defendant 4 Mt. Hubraji Kunwar, the alleged vendor, were co-sharers in and zamindars of Mauza Naikdeh. Kuber Singh, defendant 1, one of the alleged vendees, pleaded in para. 18: The defendant is an exproprietary tenant in mauza Rasulpur. Accordingly the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption on this ground as well.

(2.) On this pleading the trial Court framed issue 2: Whether the defendant is an exproprietary tenant in the mahal in question and hence the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption is not maintainable?

(3.) On this issue the trial Court found: Defendant 1 is exproprietary tenant in village Rasulpur. There are several pattis in village Easul-pur. The defendant's exproprietary tenancy is in a different patti and not in the patti in which the property is situate. The plaintiff is co-sharer in the same patti in which the property in dispute is situate. The plaintiff being co-sharer in the patti in which the property is situate is entitled to preempt the property of village Rasulpur also. My finding on this issue is that defendant is exproprietary tenant in one appurtenant village only but as the exproprietary tenancy is in a different patti from the patti in which the property in dispute is situate and plaintiff is co-sharer, therefore plaintiff is entitled to pre- empt the property of village Rasulpur also.