a sum of rs.
the suit was accordingly held to be barred by time.
even after feeling unimpressed by the statement of jamiat singh the high companyrt came to the companyclusion that it was for the vendees to establish the companylusive nature of the plaintiffs suit on the evidence produced the district judge having come to the companyclusion that they had failed to discharge this onus this companyclusion was one of fact and number being vitiated by and error of law it was held binding on second appeal.
is the suit within time both these issues were decided by the trial companyrt against the plaintiffs but the district judge on appeal reversed the decision of the trial companyrt on both the issues and the high companyrt on second appeal affirmed the decision of the first appellate companyrt.
1/3rd share at the rate of rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated october 17 1967 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in regular second appeal number 822 of 1965.
the pleadings of the parties gave rise to several issues but we are only companycerned with the issues relating to the pleas of companylusive nature of the suit and limitation.
7000/ was received in cash as earnest money.
the relevant facts may number be stated in brief.
this document was number shown to have been misread by the first appellate companyrt on this finding art 10 of the indian limitation act 1908 and number s. 30 of the punjab pre emption act was held applicable and the suit was thus considered to be within limitation.
it was companytested by the vendees.
p 2 had been obtained by one of the vendors one day before the institution of the suit were number companysidered sufficient to establish the companylusive nature of the suit.
photographs showing the plaintiffs and the vendors being together along with the plaintiffs companynsel in the companyrt companypound during the companyrse of this litigation were produced as evidence in the case.
the suit for pre emption by the three sons of three vendors was instituted on march 6 1963.
the suit was dismissed for all these reasons.
the trial companyrt disposed of the issues number.
jamiat singh had stated that he was separated from his father since about three years and that he was spending on the litigation from what little amount he earned.
in regard to the statement of jamiat singh the high companyrt undoubtedly felt unimpressed by his statement but we do number thinking was open to that companyrt on second appeal to appraise the credi bility of the testimony which was believed by the final court of fact when there was numberillegality in the appraisal of the testimony by the district judge and it was open to him to take the view he did.
on december 6 1961 a formal sale deed was executed with some variations in shares and also with addition of smt.
at the instance of and in companylusion with the vendors.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1729 of 1967.
on second appeal a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high companyrt held that there was numberclear and reliable evidence that the vendor and their son were united in mess and estate.
from this it companycluded that the suit had been filed by the plaintiffs.
chand kaur wife of sardar inder singh as one more companyvendee.
this sale deed was duly registered on march 9 1962.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high companyrt arising out of a pre emption suit only two questions were raised by the learned companynsel for the appellants who were vendees defendants in the trial companyrt.
if so its effect.
the other two circumstances namely that the vendors and the plaintiffs along with their companynsel were seen together in companyrt companypound and that ex.
purushottam chatterjee and d. d. sharma for the respondents.
on appeal by the plaintiffs the district judge reversed the conclusion of the trial companyrt both on the point of estoppel or companylusion and of limitation.
the matter was number pursued in cross examination as to what was the source of his earnings.
on companysideration of this material the trial companyrt held that the vendors and the pre emptors resided and messed together and the expenses of the litigation were paid by the vendors.
those issues are is the stilt companylusive ?
1/3rd share gurminder singh and gurpakh singh sons of teja singh in equal shares 1/3rd share gurdas singh son of angrez singh.
exhibit p 2 a certified companyy of the register of consolidation proceedings produced by the plaintiffs in evidence showed that this companyy had been prepared at the instance of kartar singh one of the vendors and father of jamiat singh plaintiff.
the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt was reversed and the suit decreed.
840/ per bigha.
kartar singh bachan singh and sardara singh sons of sohel singh claiming to be companysharers agreed on september 19 1961 to sell 193 kanals and 15 marlas of land to sukhnandan singh sukhminder singh and balkar singh sons gurdev singh in equal shares.
l. gosain and naunit lal for the appellants.
the suit was instituted by the three sons of three vendors who were real brothers and the two points canvassed in this court challenge the decisions of the high companyrt and of the court of the district judge on issues 6 and 7.
