S.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) JASPAL Singh owner 20 Kanals of agricultural land fully described in the plaint. Vide registered patanama dated 193. 1979, Ex. D-1, he inducted one, Mohinder Singh, as tenant on the whole of the said land. Jaspal Singh thereafter on 16. 1. 1981 sold 12 kanals out of abovesaid 20 kanals in favour of Mohinder Singh vide registered sale deed Ex. P1. He sold rest of the 8 kanals of land in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 vide the same registered sale deed i. e. Ex. P-1. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur pleading to be the sister of the vendor and co-sharer in the land pre-empted the sale by filing Civil Suit No. 541 of 1981, instituted on December 9, 1981. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were proceeded against exparte. Only Mohinder Singh contested the suit. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19. 5. 1984 found that Mohinder Singh was tenant on 12 kanals out of 20 kanals of the suit land and, therefore, that part of the sale was not pre-emptible and decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of 8 kanals of land.
(2.) FEELING aggrieve Bhupinder Kaur filed Civil appeal No. 145 /13 of 1984 qua the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent it had dismissed the suit qua of 12 kanals, Didar Singh, defendant No. 2 filed cross-appeal which was treated as cross-objections. On page 85 of the Lower Appellate Court, following statement find place : "statement of counsel for the defendant-vendees W/o of Mohinder Singh and Didar Singh. . . . . The findings of the trial Court are not assailed on any issue. Sd / - ADJ, Kurukshetra. 20. 11. 1984. R. O. and A. C. Statement of counsel for the plaintiff-appellant w/o : The finding of the trial Court is assailed on issue No. 5 and that too to the extent it was decided against the plaintiff. No other findings are assailed. Sd/adj, Kurukshetra, 20. 11. 1984. R. O. and A. C. The learned first appellate Court affirmed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 5 vide Us judgment and decree dated 11. 9. 1986. 3. It is that judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court which has been impugned in the Regular Second Appeal and which requires my exanimation of its sustainability.
(3.) I have seen the pleadings of the parties in the suit, evidence adduced by them in the suit and the judgments of both the Courts below.;