KIRAN ANAND LALL, J. - (1.) FACTS which are not in dispute, are that the suit land, measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas and comprised in Rectangle and Killa No. 28/13 (4-10), 18(3-18), was sold by respondent No. 2 Sunil Kumar, to Smt. Ratni Devi, appellant, vide registered sale-deed dated 6.5.1988.
(2.) CLAIMING a superior right of pre-emption on the ground of being a tenant on the suit land, continuously for the last 40 years, respondent No. 1 Chankanda Ram, filed a suit for pre-emption. According to him, the land was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- but a fictitious sum of Rs. 17,000/- was got mentioned in the sale-deed, in order to defeat his right of pre-emption. The appellant (Vendee) contested the suit, denying his (of respondent No. 1) tenancy on the land at the time of sale and also thereafter. Her case was that respondent No. 1 had never remained in possession of the land. She also pleaded that the vendor delivered the possession of the land to her, at the time of sale, and since then, she had been continuing in its possession. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) was even estopped from filing the suit, by his act and conduct, as the appellant had purchased the land, with his (of respondent No. 1) consent. The land was offered for sale, to him (respondent No. 1) for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/- but since he expressed his inability and helplessness to purchase it, the appellant went ahead with the deal of sale, in her favour. Plea of the suit being bad for partial pre-emption and that of being time-barred etc., were also taken up. Trial was held in respect of the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff has a superior right to pre-empt the impugned sale ? OPP 2. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith and actually exchanged hands between the parties to the sale ? OPD 3. If issue No. 2 is not affirmed what was the actual market price of the property in question at the time of execution of the impugned sale-deed ? OPD 4. Whether the stamp, registration and other misc. charges were borne by the vendee. If so what is the amount so spent by them ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for partial pre-emption ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD 8. Whether certain improvements have been made on the land in dispute by the vendee and if so what is the amount so spent by them ? OPD 9. Relief.
(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit, by answering issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 against respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). The remaining issues viz. 5, 6 and 7 were, however, decided against the appellant, as those were not pressed by the learned counsel representing her.;