- (1.) This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 148, 149 and 150 of 1983 as all of them arise out of a common judgment dated 7.10.1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul.
(2.) The facts in brief are that one Loku Ram was the owner of 1 Bigha of land in the revenue estate of Narnaul which he sold to Atam Parkash, vendee-respondent No. 1, by a registered sale deed dated 23.3.1976 for a consideration of Rs. 1,750/-. Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi, son and daughter respectively of Loku Ram vendor, instituted two separate suits for possession by way of pre-emption of the said sale claiming, inter alia, that they are the son and daughter of the vendor. Smt. Gulab Devi appellant herein filed a third suit for pre-emption of the said sale on the ground that she is the tenant on the land sold by the vendor and thus she is entitled to pre-empt the sale. All the three suits were consolidated and decided together. Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi as also respondent No. 1 denied that the appellant is in actual possession of the suit land as a tenant. The appellant and respondent No. 1 denied the claim of Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi that they are the son and daughter respectively of the vendor and had the right to pre-empt the sale. They instead asserted that the vendor along with Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi formed a joint Hindu family and thus the sale was not pre-emptible by them. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :- (1) Whether Gulab Devi has been cultivating the land in dispute as tenant and hence has right of pre-emption ? OPP (2) Whether Shanti Lal is son of Loku Ram vendor ? OP Shanti Lal. (3) Whether Smt. Bimla Devi is daughter of Loku Ram vendor ? OP Bimla Devi. (4) Whether of the above have preferential right of pre-emption ? OP Pre-emptors. (5) Whether the land in dispute is coparcenary property qua Loku Ram, Shanti Lal and Smt. Bimla Devi and if so, to what effect ? OP Vendees. (6) Whether the vendees are entitled for the expenses on the transaction ? OP vendees. (7) Relief.
(3.) The learned Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul, vide his judgment dated 14.4.1976 decreed all the three suits holding that Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi are the son and daughter of the vendor while the appellant is in occupation of the land as a tenant. It was further held that there was no joint Hindu family consisting of the vendor Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi. The decree passed was to the following effect :- "In view of the above discussion, the suits of the three plaintiffs are hereby decreed for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute on depositing the amount of Rs. 2,023.25. Firstly Shanti Lal and Bimla Devi will have the land equally and each would deposit Rs. 1,012/- by 21.7.1980. In case any of them fails to do so, then the other would deposit the balance by 11.8.1980. In that event, Gulab Devi would not get the land. In case both fail to deposit the amount by that date, then Gulab Devi would deposit the entire amount by 30.8.1980. They would take into account the amount already deposited towards zar-e-panjam. In case, none deposits the amount, then the three suits will stand as having been dismissed with costs.";