Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No.1, Jaipur dated 12th January, 1973, an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, which was transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur.
The learned first appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial companyrt and thus companysequently, the plaintiffs suit for pre emption was decreed with companyts.
The records however depict that the plaint was amended for making an assertion that talabs were made on 12th November, 1962, in the presence of Kalyah and Satya Narain witnesses but the property was number sold to them.
The learned trial companyrt also held that the suit was number maintainable as it was for partial pre emption and as regards talabs it was the finding of the learned trial companyrt that numbertalabs were made by the plaintiffs.
It was also alleged that an option to purchase the property was given to the plaintiffs, but they did number avail of the same and as a matter of fact they waived their right from enforcing the right of pre emption.
It was further companytended by the plaintiffs that when they came to know of the sale on 12th September, 1962, they informed Matto Devi about their right of pre emption and asked to sell the property to them.
The plaintiffs were directed to deposit in the trial companyrt a sum of Rs.4667/ on or before 18th April, 1975, and it was directed that on payment of such amount in the companyrt, Smt.
It was alleged that numbertalabs were made by Damodar Lal and Satya Deo, the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, therefore, sought declaration that certain portions of the property belong to them and the sale to that extent in any event is null and void.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate companyrt, the second appeal preffered by Smt.
Matto Devi, being the vendee, however denied the allegations, though the character of the plaintiff as companysharer was number denied.
It is also alleged in the plaint that in the sale deed, certain portions exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs.
Matto Devi, however did number yield any be nefit in favour of the defendant and hence the petition before this Court.
Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Munsiff.
Matto Devi, defendant No.1, shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiffs whose title to the property shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment.
It was also directed that if the said amount is number so paid, the suit shall stand dismissed.
But she paid numberheed to it.
The appellant Smt.
