Chopra, J. - (1.) KASHMIRI Lal Respondent's suit for pre -emption, on the basis of contiguity, was dismissed by the trial Sub Judge as time -barred, the rest of the issues having been decided in his favor. The learned District Judge, Kapurthala, accepted the Plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit for possession on payment of the full consideration holding that the Plaintiff was kept ignorant of the sale by fraud and consequently the suit was within time. This is Defendant's second appeal.
(2.) THE only point agitated by the parties is one of limitation. The house in dispute is situate at Phagwara, to which place the Plaintiff belongs.. Mst. Durga Devi of Chatha is the vendor. On 6 -6 -1996 she sold the house in suit by three separate unregistered deeds, each relating to one -third share of the house and for a consideration of Rs. 100/ -. One of these deeds is in favour of Mst. Phula Wanti, wife of Shanti Parkash, another in favour of her two minor sons Sham La and Piara Lal and the third in favour of her other two minor sons, namely Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal. Shanti Parkash who was then alive, is alleged to be the real vendee, though the sale -deeds were executed in favour of his wife and minor sons. At all material times, they wore residing at Chistian, Bahawalpur State. From there, on 16 -9 -1996, Shanti Parkash addressed a letter to Shiv Ram, brother of Kashmiri Lal Plaintiff, at Phagwara asking him not to build a stair -case in his own house but towards the adjoining house which had been purchased by the addresser. Nand Lal, Kashmiri Lal's father, got a clue of the sale from this letter. But even then what he could know from the letter or infer from the circumstances was that the entire house was sold by means of a single deed and that the sale was in favour of Shanti Parkash. Nand Lal consequently filed a suit for pre -emption against Shanti Parkash. This suit, filed on 22 -2 -1997, was decreed exparte on 22 -4 -1997. Shanti Parkash applied for setting aside the exparte decree. It was set aside on 4 -1 -1998. In his written statement, filed thereafter on 13 -1 -1998, Shanti Parkash put forth the plea that the sale was not in his favour and he had, therefore, been wrongly impleaded as a Defendant. There also he did not disclose as to who the vendees were or that the sale deeds were more than one. This put the Plaintiff on inquiry as to how the matters stood. On 6 -11 -1998, he submitted an application for amendment of the plaint and for impleading the -wife' and the four minor sons of Shanti Parkash as Defendants. This application was rejected and the suit dismissed by the Sub Judge. The prayer was how -ever accepted, in appeal by the District Judge and. the case, remanded. Amended plaint adding the ostensible vendees as Defendants was presented on 10 -8 -1999. The trial court accepted the Plaintiff's plea of fraud, but dismissed the suit as time -barred holding that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the date of his knowledge of actual facts. Learned District Judge is of the view that once, fraud -Was established it was for the defen -dant to prove as to when the influence of that fraud had ceased to operate. There being no evidence on the point, he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit. Both the courts below are agreed that fraud was, practiced on the Plaintiff and it was because of that fraud that the Plaintiff remained ignorant about the names of the vendees as mentioned in the sale -deeds, and also about the number of the sale deeds executed. Even on hearing about the sale, the Plaintiff could hardly presume that the sale or sales was or were in favour of, the wife and minor sons of Shanti Parkash, who was himself alive. The facts that led to the influence of fraud are - (1) The property is situate at Phagwara but the sale deeds were executed at Kala Sanghian, though' none of the parties belongs thereto. (2) The deeds were not registered even though the consideration for each sale was Rs. 100/ -. (3) Three deeds were executed, each for one -third of the house, in favour or the minor sons and wife of Shanti Parkash. (4) In his post -card addressed to Shiv Ram, brother of Kashmiri Lal Plaintiff, Shanti Parkash expressed himself to be the vendee. (5) Neither in his application for setting aside the exparte decree, nor in his written statement thereafter, did Shanti Parkash disclose that the vendees1 were his wife and sons or that there were three sales in their favour. (6) Physical possession of the house was not taken by the vendee or vendees for a long time after the sales.
(3.) SHRI K.N. Tewari, learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the vendees were not bound to inform the Plaintiff of the sales in their, favour and therefore, mere silence on their part, does not amount to fraud. It is correct that mere failure, or 'omission to give the pre -emptor information or notice of the sale is not, by itself, enough to bring the case within Section 18, Limitation Act, as it does not amount to keeping the pre -emptor from the knowledge of his right by means of fraud. But where' there is an active concealment or a willful misstatement of facts and the pre -emptor, is thereby kept from the knowledge of his right, this section would certainly come into play. It may hot always be possible to prove fraud by any direct evidence; It has generally to be inferred from circumstances, and a number of suspicious circumstances may, when combined, strongly lead to the Inference of fraud. On the facts of the case, I do not think the courts below are wrong in drawing an inference of fraud in 'favour of the Plaintiff.;