HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of aforementioned four regular second appeals, arising out of four separate suits for possession by way of pre -emption of land measuring 13 kanals 18 marlas each in respect of land sold by Om Parkash adopted son of Mst. Kakian Wali in favour of appellants. The plaintiffs Anil Kumar son of Jagdish Chander and Sanjay Kumar son of Dina Nath claim right of pre -emption on the basis of tenancy over the land, subject matter of four sale deeds.
(2.) OM Parkash executed four separate sale deeds on 04.06.1993. Such sale deeds were made subject matter of suit for pre -emption by the plaintiffs, who alleged themselves to be tenants, therefore, in terms of section 15 of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1914, the plaintiffs claimed right to pre -empt the sale. In the written statement, the defendants denied tenancy and also asserted that the defendants were bona fide purchaser for value and consideration. It is pleaded that Mst Kakiyan Wali was owner of 111 kanals 19 marlas of land in village Sandhala. She transferred 1/2 share in favour of her adopted son Om Parkash by way of a civil court decree on 23.02.1970. After some time, she sold her remaining 1/2 share to one Neorati son of Banarsi. Thus, her son Om Parkash and Neorati became co -sharer in the land measuring 111 kanals 19 marlas. Therefore Mst Kakiyan Wali was not competent to induct any person, as a tenant over any part of the land comprised in Khewat No.54 and 92 and that the plaintiffs were never in cultivating possession of the suit land and could not be said to be tenant for the reason that they were of tender age at the time of alleged inception of their tenancy. It was asserted that Om Parkash actually entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the defendants in the year 1986. It is also averred that Mst Kakiyan Wali filed a suit challenging the decree, whereby she had transferred 1/2 share of her land to Om Parkash on the ground of fraud. That suit was prosecuted by Jagdish Chand, father of Anil Kumar and uncle of Sanjay Kumar. It was also asserted that the plaintiffs were very much aware of the proposed sale of the suit land by Om Parkash in favour of the defendants. In the rejoinder, the plaintiffs asserted that defendants have filed an application for ejectment before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri and that they defendants cannot deny the relationship of land -lord and tenant or the competency of Mst Kakiyan Wali regarding induction of tenant. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plaintiffs have been proved to be tenants. Such finding of tenancy was primarily based upon proceedings for eviction initiated by the appellants against the plaintiffs and also for recovery of rent. On the basis of such findings, the suit was decreed. The first appeal has also been dismissed. The parties went on trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have got a superior right to pre - empt the sale? OPP 2. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith or was actually paid? OPP 3. If issue no.1 is not proved what was the market value of the suit land at the time of its sale? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD Whether the 1/5th pre -emption amount has not been deposited, as 7. alleged? OPD 8. Whether the stamp and registration expenses were borne by the vendees -defendants? OPD 9. Whether the vendees defendants are entitled to any improvement expenses as alleged? OPD 10. Relief.
(3.) DURING the course of evidence, the plaintiff namely Anil Kumar appeared as PW -1 in all the suits and also proved the documents Exs.P -1 to P -8. Om Parkash, vendor, appeared in each suit as DW -2 besides one of the defendants in each case, who was examined as DW -1. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence primarily relying upon Form -L (Exs.P -4 and P -5) came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had been cultivating the suit land as tenants prior to the sale, at the time of sale as well as at the time of decree, therefore they had a superior right to pre -empt the sale made by Om Parkash through four different sale deeds. Learned first Appellate Court examined the revenue record produced by the defendants and found that the defendants filed ejectment petitions against the plaintiffs claiming rent for Kharif, 1993 to Rabi, 1994, as the Kharif crop starts from May and ends with October of a particular year, therefore, the plaintiffs are proved to be tenants over the suit land prior to sale on 04.06.1993.;