Passey, J. - (1.) THIS and No. 130 of 1952 are two connected appeals arising out of the appellate decree of the Additional District Judge Faridkot in a suit for pre -emption which had been dismissed by the trial Court. The Plaintiffs have been held entitled to possession of 3/7th share in the land in dispute on payment Of Rs. 16,119/ -/ -. The salient facts may be shortly stated.
(2.) BY a sale -deed executed on 26 -8 -1949 but registered on 15 -2 -1950 Ram Nath and four Ors. Defendants 3 to 7 sold 179 kanals 2 marlas of agricultural land in village Bandar Jatana for Rs. 37,611/ -/ - to Sarwan Singh and Saudagar Singh Defendants 1 and 2. Bishan Singh and three Ors. Defendants 8 to 11 claiming to be owners in the Patti in the estate within the limits of which the property sold was situate and, therefore, having a superior right than the vendees who were strangers brought a suit (No. 14) on 26 -8 -1950, to pre -empt that sale. A consent decree was passed in their favour on 23 -1 -1951 subject to the condition that they paid Rs. 37,611/ -/ - to the vendees by 27 -4 -1951 failing Which the suit would stand dismissed. The decree -holders deposited Rs. 1700/ -/ -on 6 -1 -1951 and the balance on 23 -4 -1951. The Plaintiffs Khazan Singh and two Ors. , who were also owners of land in the same Patti filed the present suit (No. 13) on 15 -2 -1951, to enforce their right of pre -emption and they impleaded the vendors, the vendees and decree -holders. of suit No. 14 as Defendants. The sale price of Rp. 37,611/ - was stated to have been fictitiously entered in the document of sale and that in fact Rs. 18,000/ - only had been paid to the vendors. The suit was based on the original sale dated 15 -2 -1950 and it was stated in the plaint that the decree obtained by Defendants 8 to 11 on 23 -1 -1951 could have no adverse effect on their pre -emptive right. The Plaintiffs' claim was resisted chiefly by the Defendants 8 -11, who urged in their written statement that the Plaintiffs could have no right to preempt the property in respect of which they had. already obtained a decree for possession They meant to say that before the Plaintiffs could ask for a decree, it was imperative for them to establish a superior right than the one with which they (Defendants 8 -11) were already clothed and that since both they and the Plaintiffs had equal qualification inasmuch as both had claimed the right of pre -emption on the basis of their being owners in the Patti in which the suit land was situate, the Plaintiffs' suit was liable to be dismissed. The Defendants also maintained that Rs. 37611/ -/ - had been actually paid and the price had been fixed in good faith. The trial Court framed the following four issues: 1. Whether the suit is within time? O.P. on Plaintiff. 2. Whether the Plaintiffs' right of pre -emption is superior to that of the vendees (Defendants 1 and 2 and 8 to 11)? O.P. on Plaintiffs. Whether the consideration was fixed in good faith or actually paid? O.P. on Defendants.
(3.) WHAT is the market -value of the property in V," dispute? O.P. on Plaintiffs. 3. Issue No. (1) was decided in favour of the Plaintiffs and No. 3 against them and as the decision of issue No. 2 also went against them their suit was dismissed. Since issue No. 3 had been decided in favour of the Defendants it was not thought necessary to go into issue No. 4. 4. appeal the learned Additional District Judge, decided issue No, 2 in favour of the plain -tiffs held them to be entitled to possession of 3/7th share in the property in question on payment of the proportionate price of Rs. 16,119/ -/ -. ' The Defendants 8 -11 have now filed appeal No. 57 to get the Plaintiffs' suit dismissed. Their counsel, his also stressed that even if the . Plaintiff be found to be entitled to a proportionate share along with Defendants 8 -11, that share should be deter -mined according to Clause (c) of Section 17, Pre -emption Act and not Clause (e) as had been done by the lower appellate Court. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs have in their cross -appeal (No. 130) prayed for a decree for half of the land in dispute, for their costs in both the Courts below, and for reduction of the sale price by Rs. 10,000/ -.;