VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE vendees are the appellants before this Court who have lost concurrently in a suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Himta Ram filed a suit for pre-emption on December 14, 1989 claiming a right of pre-emption with regard to land measuring 32 kanals which had been sold by Smt. Shakuntla Devi, widow of Bahadur Singh, to Krishan Lal and Bhagwan Singh through a registered sale deed dated December 15,1988 for a consideration of Rs. 1,17,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that 20/32 shares had been sold in favour of defendant No. 1 Krishan Lal, whereas, 12/32 shares had been sold in favour of defendant No. 2 Bhagwan Singh. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that although the actual price was fixed at Rs. 80,000/- but the consideration had been shown as Rs. 1,17,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that he was a co-sharer alongwith Shakuntla Devi in the joint khata and khewat and, therefore, had a preferential right to purchase the land. It was also claimed that the defendants were strangers and had no concern with the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiff had a superior right to purchase the same. The suit was contested by the defendants. They took up various technical pleas. On merits of the controversy, it was claimed that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer of the suit land. It was further pleaded by the defendants that after purchase they had made improvements in the suit land and had raised construction also by raising a room. It was further pleaded that they had improved their status by purchasing some other land from Shakuntla Devi through a registered sale deed dated May 2, 1989 and having improved their status and having become co-sharers, the plaintiff had no preferential right to pre-empt the sale in favour of the defendants.
(3.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court. It was held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff was a co-sharer alongwith Shakuntla Devi and as such had a right of preemption. The sale was held to be for a consideration of Rs. 1,17,000/-. Although it was held that the sale deed Ex.D3 dated May 2, 1989 had been executed by Shakuntla Devi in favour of the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 1,21,312/-, but still even by the aforesaid improvement in their status by the defendant-vendees the right of the plaintiff could not be defeated by them. As a result of the aforesaid findings, the claim of the plaintiff was upheld.;