- (1.) This is an appeal filed by Maman, minor defendant, through Ramdev his guardian against the judgment and decree dated September 17, 1973 of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the appeal of Manpal Singh plaintiff was dismissed, but be was given time to deposit the sale price by September 27, 1973, failing which his, suit was to stand dismissed.
(2.) The facts of this case are that the land in dispute belonged to Durjan, defendant No. 1, who sold the same to defendants 2 to 11 for a sum of Rs. 61,000/- on the basis of a registered sale deed dated February 22, 1971. Manpal Singh, the son of Durjan Singh vendor, filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of this land on payment of Rs. 48,000/-. This suit was contested on various grounds. It was pleaded by the vendees that the suit was bad for partial pre-emption, that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit, that they were tenants on the disputed land and, therefore, the sale is not pre-emptible and that the suit was collusive. The right of pre-emption of the plaintiff was contested. It was pleaded that the sale took place for Rs. 61,000/- and the same was the market value of the land. They also claimed expenses incurred by them on the execution and the registration of the sale deed. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the suit is bad for partial pre-emption ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his acts and conduct ? (3) Whether the vendees were tenant on the disputed land and thus the sale is not pre-emptible ? (4) Whether the suit is collusive ? (5) Whether the plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption ? (6) Whether the sale price was fixed and paid in good faith ? (7) If issue No. 6 is not proved what is the market value of the land in suit ? (8) Whether the defendants-vendees are entitled to the expenses of stamp and Registration ? (9) Relief. " The trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the defendents- vendees. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that the sale took place for Rs. 61,000/- and issue No. 6 was decided in favour of the vendees. No finding was given on issue No. 7 in view of the decision on issue No. 6. The vendees were held to be entitled to Rs. 6,722/- on account of the expenses incurred by them on the execution and registration of the sale deed and issue No. 8 was decided accordingly. As a result, decree for possession by pre-emption of the laud in suit was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the vendees on payment of Rs. 67,722/- and this amount was ordered to be deposited on or before April 15, 1973; failing which the suit was to stand dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied, Manpal Singh plaintiff filed an appeal against this decree in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, alleging that the sale took place for Rs. 48.000/- only and the decree of the trial Court may be modified to this extent and time to deposit this amount may be extended.
(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing on September 17, 1973, the counsel for the appellant did not press this appeal on merits and requested that ten days time i.e. upto September 27, 1973 may be granted to deposit the amount of sale price as fixed by the trial Court; failing which the suit of the plaintiff appellant shall stand dismissed and if the sale price is deposited on that date, then the parties shall bear their own costs otherwise the plaintiff-appellant shall pay Rs. 61,000/- to the respondent-vendees as costs of the appeal. The counsel for the appellant made a statement to that effect also. The counsel for the vendee-respondents stated that time may be granted to deposit the sale price by September 27, 1973, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. In accordance with these statements the trial Court granted time to the plaintiff-appellant to deposit the sale price as fixed by the trial Court on or before September 27, 1973; failing which the suit shall stand dismissed and the appeal was decided in accordance with the above statements. Feeling dissatisfied, Maman minor defendant filed this appeal through his father Ramdev as guardian alleging that his counsel was not authorised to enter into compromise, with the plaintiff-appellant, that permission to effect this compromise was not obtained from the Court and, therefore, the decree of the lower appellate Court, passed against him is invalid and it may be set aside.;