- (1.) By a registered document dated 18-5-1956 Pal Singh sold the land now in dispute to Mohinder Singh etc., for Rs. 6,000/-. Jagjit Singh filed a suit for possession of this land by pre-emption on the ground that he was vendor's collateral and the vendees were strangers. Another suit for pre-emption was filed on behalf of Sukhbir Singh minor on the ground that he was vendor's grandson. The two suits were tried together. Jagjit Singh produced evidence but no evidence was produced on behalf of the minor. The trial Court rejected the request of the counsel appearing for the minor for adjournment of the case for production of evidence and then dismissed both the suits as both the plaintiff's had failed to prove their relationship with the vendor. Both the plaintiff's filed separate appeals which were heard by the Senior Sub-Judge, Karnal. The learned Judge allowed the minor to produce additional evidence on payment of Rs. 75/- as costs. The statement of Vir Kaur (the minor's next friend and his grandmother) was recorded and a copy of the pedigree-table was allowed to be produced. The vendees did not produce any evidence in rebuttal in spite of the fact that they got the case adjourned for that purpose. The lower appellate Court on the basis of this additional evidence upheld the relationship alleged by both the plaintiff's. He accordingly held that Sukhbir Singh was entitled as a grandson of the vendor to exercise his right of pre-emption first on payment of Rs. 6,000/ and that if he failed to deposit the required amount within time, then Jagjit Singh will be entitled to exercise his right of pre-emption on payment of the same amount. The vendees dissatisfied with this decree have filed these separate appeals (Regular Second Appeal No. 542 of 1959 and Regular Second and Anr. (23.... Page 2 of 7 Appeal No. 543 of 1959) in this Court and it will be convenient to decide both these appeals by this judgment.
(2.) Two points were urged before me on behalf of the vendees: (1) that the learned Senior Sub-Judge had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for payment of Rs. 6,000/- as that amount was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and (2) that the lower appellate Court was not justified in recording additional evidence at the appellate stage.
(3.) The second point can be easily disposed of. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the trial Court should have granted an additional opportunity to the minor to produce his evidence because his next friend Vir Kaur did not attend Court on the day fixed for evidence on account of death of a relation. I see no ground for interfering with the exercise of this discretion by the lower appellate Court. It is true that the recording of additional evidence has enabled Jagjit Singh to take advantage of the evidence produced on behalf of the minor, but as the two suits were heard together he is entitled to such benefit. He may well have not produced the pedigree-table and got Vir Kaur examined as his witness because she was in any case to make her statement and had to produce the pedigree-table in the minor's suit. This contention raised on behalf of the appellants, therefore, fails and is rejected.;