- (1.) The controversy in this second appeal filed by the plaintiffs is as under :- Suit for possession by way of pre-emption was filed by the appellants in the Court of Sub-Judge I Class, Kurukshetra through their next friend Smt. Anguri (their mother) as all of them were minors. It was alleged that their father Jai Narain had sold the suit land to defendant-respondents 1 to 3 vide registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1976 for a fictitious sale price of Rs. 29,000/-. According to them the sale price was actually Rs. 26,625/- and not Rs. 29,000/-. It was also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the sons of the vendor Jai Narain, whereas the defendants are strangers and therefore, the plaintiffs have a superior right of pre-emption. The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondents and the relationship between the plaintiffs and the vendor was denied and it was also pleaded that the total sale price of Rs. 29,000/- was actually paid and the stamp and registration charges of the sale deed were also spent by them. They further took up the plea that 1/5th of pre-emption money was not deposited by the plaintiffs-appellants within time. The parties contested on the following issues :- (1) Whether the plaintiffs have a superior right of pre-emption OPP (2) Whether the sale price was actually paid or fixed in good faith OPD (3) If issue No. 2 is not proved, what is the market price of the suit land OPP (4) Whether the stamp and registration charges were borne by the vendee defendants If so, how much and to what effect OPD (5) Whether the vendee defendants effected any improvements on the suit land after the impugned sale If so, for how much OPD (6) Whether Sukhdev plaintiff No. 4 was dead at the time of filing the suit If so, to what effect OPD (7) Whether the 1/5th of pre-emption money was not deposited within time OPD (8) Whether the suit has been filed in collusion with the defendant No. 4 If so, to what effect OPD (9) Relief. The trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Under issue No. 6 it was held that it was not proved that Sukhdev plaintiff had died before the institution of the suit. The finding on issue No. 7 was that since 1/5th of pre-emption money had been deposited within the extended date, the plaint was not liable to be rejected. The remaining issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and suit was decreed. Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal and the finding on issue No. 7 was reversed and it was held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the 1/5th of pre-emption money. It was also held that the suit for the entire land could not be decreed by the trial Court as Sukhdev, one of the plaintiffs, died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were not brought on the record.
(2.) The questions which now survive for determination in this appeal are as under :- (1) Whether the trial Court was justified in extending the time for depositing the pre-emption money and (2) Whether the suit could be decreed for the whole land
(3.) I have perused the record. The facts are not disputed. The plaintiffs were to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,800/- as 1/5th of the pre-emption money on or before 1st October, 1976. All the plaintiffs, including Sukhdev plaintiff who died during the pendency of the suit, were admittedly minors and had filed the suit through their mother Smt. Anguri Devi as their next friend. On 1st October, 1976, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiffs for extension of time to deposit the 1/5th of the pre-emption money due to the death of their brother Sukhdev and due to the fact that their commission agent (Arhatia) was out of station. This application was supported by an affidavit. This was allowed and the time was extended by the trial Court upto 14th October, 1976. Admittedly, 1/5th of the pre-emption money was deposited within that period. The trial Court had ample jurisdiction under Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (Act 1 of 1913) to extend the time to make the deposit of 1/5th of the probable value of the land or property in suit. Section 22(4) reads as under :- "If the plaintiff fails within the time fixed by the Court or within such further time as the Court may allow to make the deposit or furnish the security mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2), his plaint shall be rejected or his appeal dismissed, as the case may be.";