DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) The short controversy involved in this appeal is, whether the respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 are entitled to have the disputed property purchased in exercise of right of pre-emption on the basis of common partition wall existing between the two houses, one owned by them and the other owned by defendants No. 2 to 5 who are respondents No. 4 to 7 in this appeal.
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit stating therein that the defendants No. 2 to 5 (respondents No. 4 to 7 herein) owned a house in the northern side of the house owned by plaintiffs. There was a common partition wall of the joint ownership of both the parties between the two houses. Plaintiffs came to know on 04.03.1980 that defendants No. 2 to 5 were going to sell the house owned by them. They served upon defendants a registered notice on 20.03.1980. Despite that defendants No. 2 to 5 sold the house to defendant No.1 for Rs.21,000/-, though mala fidely mentioning the sale consideration as Rs.25,000/- in the said sale deed. Plaintiffs averred that they were ready and willing to purchase the house in exercise of the right of pre-emption under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966.
(3.) Written statement came to be filed on behalf of defendant No.1 wherein, he denied all the facts mentioned in the plaint and stated that there is no common partition wall of the joint ownership between the two houses and hence, plaintiffs have no right of pre-emption. Defendant No. 3 also filed the written statement stating therein that the wall existing between the two houses was owned by defendants No. 2 to 5 only and this was not the common wall between the parties. It was also stated that firstly, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption and secondly, because of the financial constraints, they were not ready and willing to purchase the house sold by defendants.;