- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant -plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Deedwana has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : Ramnath and Pannalal S/o Ramnath filed a suit for declaration and specific performance of contract on 22.4.1974 with the averments that the land ad measuring 17 Bigha 15 Biswa in Khasara No.154 and 4 Biswa in Khasara No.153 situated at Rohida Bera Ka Jav ('suit property') belonged to one Keshar Kanwar and Sugan Singh. After death of Keshar Kanwar, widow of his son Bhanwar Singh, Smt. Dakh Kanwar (respondent No.3) succeeded, who alongwith Sugan Singh sold the said property by way of 'KACCHI LIKHA PADHI' (informal agreement) to the plaintiff -Ramnath and defendant -Kanhaiyalal and since then the same remained in their cultivatory possession; Ramnath and Kanhaiyalal partitioned the movable and immovable properties and the suit property came in the share of the plaintiff, out of which Sugan Singh executed a registered sale deed in favour of Ramnath's son Pannalal (plaintiff No.2) and as the land was not mutated in the name of Smt. Dakh Kanwar, the same could not be registered in the name of the plaintiff, at that time, however, the same remained in possession of the plaintiff and continuous to be so; subsequent thereto with a view to harm the plaintiff, defendant ­ Kanhaiyalal got the sale deed of the half portion executed in favour of his minor son Nandkishore on 30.12.1973 from Smt. Dakh Kanwar, regarding which she had not right; it was claimed that the said 'KACCHI LIKHA PADHI' was in possession of defendant -Kanhaiyalal; plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as owner as the same came in his share by way of partition deed dated 19.3.1971 and defendant -Kanhaiyalal and Nandkishore have no right; it was also claimed that as Smt. Dakh Kanwar did not give prior notice to the plaintiff, the same was contrary to the Rajasthan Pre -emption Act. It was prayed that the sale deed dated 30.10.1973 in favour of the defendant - Nandkishore be declared void, decree for specific performance be granted regarding sale of the said land in favour of the plaintiff and in the alternative, it was prayed that under pre - emption law, the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale executed in his favour. A written statement was filed by Kanhaiyalal and Nandkishore and it was admitted that the suit property belonged to Keshar Kanwar and Sugan Singh. It was denied that the said property was sold by way of 'KACCHI LIKHA PADHI'; it was claimed that the said land was taken by plaintiff -Ramnath and defendant -Kanhaiyalal as 'Sikhmi Kastkar', regarding which the agreement is with plaintiff -Ramnath. The partition between the parties was admitted; it was claimed that as on 19.3.1971, the suit property was not in their khatedari, the same could not be partitioned, the plaintiff has trespassed on the land belonging to Nandkishore; the sale in favour of Nandkishore is valid; the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) SMT . Dakh Kanwar filed a separate written statement and supported the other two defendants, it was denied that the sale executed by her was illegal or fraudulent; she was not duped.;