- (1.) THE property in suit belonged to one Kandhai Lodh who died on the 21-10-1926, leaving a widow Srimati Thakura, the widow of a pre-deceased son Srimati Jasodra and a daughter of that son Mst. Phulia. Thakura died in 1938 and Srimati Jasodra entered into possession and transferred the property by sale on the 6th of June, 1940 to Chandrabhal, defendant No. 2. A suit for pre-emption was instituted by Narpat Singh and a decree was passed in his favour on the 7th of July, 1941. He paid the money and obtained possession of the property on the 26th of february, 1942.
(2.) IN the meanwhile on the 4th of June, 1941 Mst. Phulia instituted a suit against Srimati Jasodra and Chandrabhal claiming to be the owner of the property as a reversionary heir of her deceased grand-father. This suit was compromised. A decree was passed in favour of Mst. Phulia on the 6th of August, 1941. She obtained possession under it on the 25th of February, 1942 but she was dispossessed when possession was delivered to the pre-emptor. She brought the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming that Srimati Jasodra had no interest in the property and could not sell it in her life-time to anyone.
(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal of the pre-emptor against that decree and dismissed the suit. The learned Civil Judge purported to proceed on the basis of -- 'duni Chand v. Mst. Anar Kali', AIR 1946 PC 173 (A), and he did not accept the decision of -- 'nand Kumari Devi v. Mst. Bulkan Devi', AIR 1945 Pat 87 (B ). The lower appellate Court seems not to have understood the point that it had to decide.;