Appeal before learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, did number bring any relief.
Gurmej Singh respondent filed a suit for possession by way of pre emption, wherein it was pleaded that the vendor had sold the land measuring 20 kanals out of the joint Khewat.
The said suit was companytested by the vendees stating that the pre emptor had numbersuperior right of pre emption.
Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing present suit by his own act and companyduct?
Firstly, the Khewat companytaining the suit land had been partitioned between various companysharers much prior to the sale through an oral partition, and secondly the sale was out of the defined share of the vendor.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties various issues were framed.
Background facts essentially are as follows Vendor Bhartu sold the land measuring 20 kanals, being 400/3723 share out of the total land measuring 186 kanals 3 marlas vide registered sale deed dated 11.4.1990 to the appellants for a companysideration of Rs.1,80,000/ .
P 4 clearly indicated that specific Khasra numbers had been sold by the vendor and defined portion of the joint land has been sold and the vendees have been put into possession of the specific khasra numbers.
On both the issues the trial Court returned its findings in favour of the pre emptor holding that he had a superior right of pre emption and that he was number guilty of any such act which companyld stop him for pre empting the same.
But only two issues were companytested before the trial Court which are to the following effect Whether plaintiff has superior right to pre empt the land in dispute being companysharer?
Stand of the appellants before the High Court was that the sale deed Ext.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing Second appeal filed by the appellant in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
