Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THE suit of the Plaintiff for pre -emption having been decreed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rupar, dismissing it, the Defendant has come in appeal to this Court.
(2.) THE suit property consisting of a house in Rupar at fine belonged to one Paro, who later made a gift of it in favour of Lajwanti. The donee sold this property to the Appellant, Sat Pal Bhandari, for Rs. 1,000 on 22nd of February, 1964. A suit for pre -emption was brought by Mehar Singh Plaintiff on 22nd of February, 1985, on the ground that he had been in occupation of the house as a tenant for some years. A number of pleas were raised in defence and the following issues were framed by the trial Judge: (1) Whether the Plaintiff has superior right of pre -emption? (2) Whether the custom of pre -emption prevails in the locality in which this property is situated? (3) Whether the Defendant made improvements and if so of what value? (4) Whether the Defendant is entitled to stamp and registration expenses? If so to what amount as such? (5) Reliefs. We are no longer concerned with issues (3) and (4) as these do not form the subject -matter of the appeal. Though the trial Judge found in favour of the Plaintiff on the first issue, and held that he had a superior right to pre -empt being a tenant of the suit property, he found that the custom of pre -emption did not prevail in the locality. The suit was dismissed by the first Court on 16th of January, 1967.
(3.) IN appeal by the Plaintiff, the District Judge affirmed the finding which was challenged by the Defendant -vendee with regard to the legal status of the Plaintiff and held that he had been proved to be a tenant. The lower appellate Court, further found that the evidence adduced in the case pointed out to the conclusion that the custom of pre -emption prevailed generally in the town of Rupar and therefore, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. It may be mentioned that the subject -matter of issue No. 3 regarding improvements was not pressed before the trial Judge, nor was it agitated in appeal. On issue No. 4, the decision of both the Courts was in favour of the Plaintiff pre -emptor and that finding is no longer a live issue between the parties.;