39/13 of 1983 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal and the same was partially allowed in favour of appellants 1 2 Pre emptors and against respondents 2 5 vendees on 22.9.1984.
2 3 by filing suit for pre emption claiming their superior right to purchase the suit property.
2710 of 1984 in the High Court.
33/13 of 1983 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal.
The only point for companysideration in both the appeals is whether the appellants plaintiffs companyld be held to be the tenants based on the evidence and materials on record?
Brief facts Smt.
Kishni, Kartara and Surta were arrayed as defendants.
2709 of 1984 in the High Court.
Kartara and Surta, respondents 1 2 herein, companytested the suit on the ground that the sale has been effected by a female and, therefore, is number pre emptible under Section 15 2 of the Punjab Pre emption Act.
1 2 herein.
Out of 45 Kanals 2 Marlas, Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram are the tenants of 2 Kanals 1 Marla and of the remaining 43 Kanals 1 Marla, the appellants herein are tenants.
Questioning the said order, the plaintiffs pre emptors have filed this appeal by way of special leave.
The High Court allowed the appeal on 23.4.2004.
By order dated 22.9.1984, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 22.1.1983 of the sub Judge, First Class, Karnal.
Karnal by executing registered sale deed in favour of Kartara vendee defendant No.2 respondent No.1 herein and Surta defendant No.3 respondent No.2 herein , for a sale companysideration of Rs.67,000/ .
Against the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave.
On 22.1.1983, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
Kishni Defendant No.1/vendor Respondent No.3 herein sold the land measuring 40 Kanals situated in village Gudha, Tehsil and Dist.
Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram sons of Matu are appellants in Civil Appeal No.
In addition to the same, the appellants also relied on the specific statement made by the vendor in the companyplaint FIR to the police to the effect that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands as tenants.
In the suit, Smt.
Against the said order, the Vendees respondent Nos.
The very same vendor, namely, Kishni sold 45 kanals and 2 marlas situated in village Gudha, tehsil and District Karnal to one Phool Singh respondent No.1 in C.A.No.6591/2005 .
1 2 herein filed R.S.A. No.
Krishni sold 45 Kanals 2 Marlas of suit land situated in village Gudha, Tehsil Dist.
The appellants finally relied on the statement of companynsel for the vendors, namely, Mr. Malhotra to show that the appellants were in possession and are companytinuing the suit lands as tenants.
When Smt.
Since companymon questions of law and facts arose in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
2710 of 1984 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the vendees respondents herein.
6591 of 2005.
Kishni Vendor, sold the land measuring 40 kanals situated in village Gudha, Tehsil and District Karnal by executing a registered sale deed in favour of Kartara vendee defendant No.2 and Surta defendant No.3 for a companysideration of Rs.67,000/ , Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram, appellants in Civil Appeal No.
Out of 45 kanals and 2 marlas, the said Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram claimed, as tenants, of two kanals and one marla and the other two appellants, namely, Shivla and Devtia claimed in respect of remaining 43 kanals and one marla as tenants.
On 22.1.1983, the sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal dismissed the suit.
Sathasivam, J. C.A. No.
6590 of 2005 claiming as tenants under the vendor defendant No.1 for the last about 12 or 13 years over the suit land challenged the sale in favour of defendant Nos.
The High Court, by order dated 23.4.2004, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22.9.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal.
Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram, appellants herein, claimed themselves to be tenants under the vendor for the last about 12 13 years over the suit land and challenged the sale thereof in favour of defendant Nos.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants herein filed C.A. No.
Questioning the said order, the vendees defendants filed R.S.A. No.
Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs pre emptors filed Civil Appeal No.
6590 of 2005 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2004 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.
Heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents.
2 and 3 by filing a suit for pre emption claiming their superior right to purchase the suit property.
Karnal to Phool Singh for a sale companysideration of Rs.67,000/ .
6590/2005 and the legal representatives of Shivla s o Shiva and the legal representatives of Devita s o Nanha are the appellants in C.A. No.
2709 of 1984 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.
Brief facts Smt.
C.A. 6591 of 2005 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.
The tenants filed suit for possession by way of pre emption against the vendor and the vendees.
