GURDEV SINGH Vs. BARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surjit Singh, Sardara Singh, Bhajan Singh and Gurbachan Singh, sons of Chanda Singh, sold the land in suit to Gurdev Singh for a sum of Rs. 3420.00 by a registered sale-deed dated September 27, 1961. Barjinder Singh, minor son of Surjit Singh vendor, and Gurcharan Singh, minor son of Sardara Singh vendor, filed a suit for pre-emption of the land and pleaded that in fact only Rs. 1747.00 had been paid and the remaining amount was fictitious. Gurdev Singh vendee pleaded that he was cultivating the land in suit as a tenant under the vendors before the date of sale and, therefore, the suit for pre-emption was not maintainable. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on October 31, 1963. The pre-emptors filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Barnala, on September 18, 1964, and a decree for possession by pre-emption on payment of Rs. 2957.00 was passed. Against that decree, the vendee filed R.S.A. 1187 of 1964 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on May 25, 1971. The amount payable by the pre-emptors to the vendee was, however, enhanced from Rs. 2957.00 to Rs. 3420.00. The present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the decree of the learned Single Judge with his leave.

(2.) The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that the appellant had not been proved to be a tenant on the land in suit under the vendors before the date of sale. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court on the point was vitiated and, therefore, he decided to appreciate the evidence himself and gave a finding that the appellant had not been proved to be the tenant under the vendors of the land in suit before the date of sale. While recording that finding, the learned Single Judge did not attach any value to the entries in the Khasra girdawari, Exhibit D. 3, on the ground that in the Khasra girdawari the appellant was recorded as a tenant under the vendors whereas he had deposed as a witness that he had been inducted into the land by Gurmukh Singh and not by the vendors. The copy of the Khasra girdawari, Exhibit D. 3, relates to kharif 1959, rabi 1960, kharif 1960 and rabi 1961. Prior to kharif 1959, the land in dispute was entered as khud kasht which meant that the vendors were personally cultivating the land. From kharif 1959 the entry in the column of cultivator in the khasra girdawari is

(3.) No other point has been argued.