- (1.) This second appeal arises out of suit filed by the respondent for possession of land in dispute measuring 21 Bighas 6 Biswas by way of pre-emption.
(2.) Isher Singh and Mangal Singh were the owners of the suit land who exchanged it for one-fourth portion of a house owned by the defendants situate at Panipat vide registered deed dated February 18, 1963. Inder Singh, who was a tenant on the suit land, filed a suit for pre-emption alleging that the exchange-deed was only a camouflage and the said land had in fact been sold to the defendants . The suit was contested by the defendants, who controverted the allegations made in the plaint and also raised several objections against the maintainability of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable by Inder Singh alone 2. Whether the transaction between the parties is sale 3. Whether the suit is for partial pre-emption If so, what is its effect 4. Has the defendant constructed any building on the suit land If so, what is its effect 5. Is the plaintiff estopped from filing the present suit 6. Whether the defendant has made any improvement If so, the nature of improvement, expenditure incurred and its effect 7. Whether the price of the land Rs. 2500/- mentioned in the sale deed is sale price If not, what is the market value of suit land 8. Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption by his conduct and consent 9. Relief.
(3.) After recording evidence, issue Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were decided by the trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was held to be infructuous in view of the decision on issue Nos. 1 and 2 and under issue No. 7 the market value of the land in dispute was assessed at Rs. 2500/- as fixed in the exchange deed. In view of the said findings, a decree for possession of the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 2500/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge confirmed the findings on all these issues and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated July 8, 1966. Still dissatisfied, the defendant has come in this second appeal.;