In the suit, the deposit of the pre emption amount by the plaintiff Suram Singh before first April, 1942, was duly proved.
He had sold his undivided share in the joint khata.
The said amount was deposited by Suram Singh in Court as per the terms of the decree.
that date.
The defen dants have filed this appeal challenging the decision of the High Court.
The title of the plaintiff came to be denied by defendants only when they moved the revenue authorities for partition of the joint khata and at that stage, the suit was filed.
In the year 1940, Bassia sold the land to Harnam Singh, Munshi Ram and Tilak Chand.
In July 1941, Suram Singh brought a suit for pre emption of this sale against Harnam Singh, Munshi and Tilak Chand, The said suit was decreed on 31st January, 1942, and directed payment of pre emption amount On or before 1st April, 1942.
The trial companyrt held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land though the possession is with the defendants without any title.
2000 1 SCR 893 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABHARWAL, J. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff Suram Singh.
The District Judge allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit held that the defendants had companytinued in hostile possession since the time of the passing of the decree in pre emption suit in favour of the plaintiff and thus they had become owner by adverse possession prior to the institution of the suit.
In the first appeal, the District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
The plaintiff, being a company sharer, was in possession of the land in dispute along with other companyshares and he was never ousted from his joint possession.
The High Court has numbericed that the pre emption amount stood deposited on 31st March, 1992 and, therefore, title to land in dispute passed on to the plaintiff w.e.f.
The trial companyrt held that the partition proceedings are void since the defendants have number title to the land and the said proceedings were number binding upon the plaintiff.
The defendants had sought partition proceedings as their names companytinued in the revenue record.
The father of Suram Singh named Hand Lal was joint owner of the land in question along with one Bassia.
The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed by Suram Singh against successors in the interest of Harnam Singh, Munshi and Tilak Chand inter alia seeking a decree of declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in question and also seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendants from causing an interference in the en joyment of the suit land by him.
It has been further found by the High Court that though numberpossession was obtained by the plaintiff but on the facts of the case, numberactual possession, in fact, was required to be obtained by him since the land formed part of a joint khata of which plaintiff was one of the companysharers, and the share of vendor Bassia was never separated by way of partition before sale by him.
