AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE claim of the plaintiff-respondent, who is no more now and is represented in this appeal through her legal representatives, for possession by way of pre-emption of a piece of land measuring 16 Kanals, did not find favour with the trial Court. Owing to reversal of trial Court's findings, she succeeded before the first appellate Court and a decree for possession by way of pre-emption came to be passed in her favour.
(2.) NOW to appreciate the controversy, a glance at the facts is necessary. The plaintiff brought a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of land measuring 16 Kanals situated in village Boswal, District Fatehabad. It was averred that the suit land was owned by Surjit Singh. The plaintiff was a co-sharer in the said land. The owner sold the suit land to the defendants vide registered sale deed dated 12.5.1980 for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/- for which no notice was given by the vendor to the plaintiff. The plea raised by the plaintiff in the context was that the defendants were strangers and she being a co-sharer had a preferential right to pre-empt the sale in question. The defendants contested the claim tooth and nail. It was pleaded by the defendants that Surjit Singh had sold the perpetual lease rights in respect of the suit property to them on 12.5.1980 for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/- and since only the perpetual lease rights has been sold, the suit for pre-emption was not maintainable. The defendants further pleaded that the plea of the plaintiff was barred by the principles of res judicata in view of judgment of this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 490 of 1968 dated 1.9.1978. The defendants also raised certain preliminary objections regarding limitation and cause of action etc.
(3.) THE controversy as noticed above was further crystallized by the following issues : "1. Whether the transaction in dispute is a sale ? OPP 2. Whether the transaction in dispute is permanent lease as alleged ? 3. If the transaction in question is proved to be a sale, whether the plaintiff has a superior right to pre-empt that sale ? 4. Whether the expenses of stamps and registration fees etc. were incurred by the defendants and if so, to what amount ? OPD;