- (1.) This appeal is by vendee against whom a pre-emption decree was granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala.
(2.) The land in dispute consists of about 220 bighas which were allotted by the Rehabilitation Department some time in February 1959, to Sardar Singh vendor. On the 23rd September, 1959, he sold the entire land for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- to the vendee-appellants, the sale being by means of a registered sale deed. A pre-emption suit was brought by Ajaib Singh and Partap Singh, who were the sons of Kartar Singh real brother of Sardar Singh vendor. According to the plaintiffs they had a superior right of pre-emotion and the sale consideration, viz. Rs. 22,000/-, was only ostensible, the real consideration being Rs. 15,000/-. On the other hand, the vendee-defendants pleaded that the land in dispute was banjar and as such exempted from the right of pre-emption by virtue of Section 5 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 , -as substituted in the original Act by the Punjab Preemption (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Punjab Act No. 10 of 1960). It was further pleaded that they had made improvements and had reclaimed the land to the extent of Rs. 2,200/- which, in any event they would be entitled to recover from the plaintiffs. Finally, it was maintained that the sale price of Rs. 22,000/- had been fixed in good faith and paid. Accordingly, the case went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee-defendants in respect of the land in suit ? 2. Whether the land in suit was banjar at the time of its sale and, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to pre-empt it ? 3. Whether each plaintiff owns more than 30 standard acres of land. Therefore, they cannot acquire the land in suit in view of the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ? 4. Whether the defendants have made improvements in the land in dispute to the tune of Rs. 2200/- and as such they are entitled to recover the same from the plaintiffs ? 5. Whether the sale price of Rs. 22,000/- has been fixed in good faith and paid ? If it is not proved what is its effect ?
(3.) The trial Court granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession by pre-emption on payment of Rs. 22,000/- within three months from the date of the decree and failing such payment the suit of the plaintiffs was to stand dismissed with costs. Before the lower appellate Court the findings of the trial Court were contested only on issues Nos. 2 and 3 and these are the only issues which have been canvassed before me on behalf of the appellant-vendees.;