These allegations were denied.
2 and 3 in the suit and are respondents Nos.
68 but there is numberfinding in favour of the appellant although the trial companyrt and the District Judge seem to have proceeded on the premises that this amount was deposited but in the cir cumstances of this case it is number necessary to go into this matter.
The appellant was to pay the companyts of the diversion as well as the premium.
N. Kherdekar, N. K. Kherdekar and A. G. Ratna.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 22, 1951, of the former Nagpur High Court in Second Appeal No.
parkhi, for the appellant.
2,000 was paid as earnest money and the other in regard to Survey No.
On February 1, 1944, the sale deed was executed by the vendors in favour of the appellant and the companysideration in the sale deed was Rs.
2 and 3 in this appeal.
17,722.
15/1 for Rs.
On April 16, 1943, the vendors executed a registered sale deed in regard to Survey No,.
The appellants case is that as agreed the vendors were paid this money for deposit and it was deposited in the Treasury under Challan No.
5, 14 and 16 and the balance of the price was paid before the Registrar.
On September 11, 1943, i.e., before the sale deed was executed the respondent, Sridhar, brought a suit for pre emption against the appellant on the allegation that he had a companyoccupancy in the Survey number in dispute being the owner of Survey No.
The appellant took an appeal to the High Court which also companyfirmed the decree of the subordinate companyrts.
720 of 1945.
On April 10, 1943, D. B. Ghaisas and his mother Ramabai entered into two companytracts of sale with the appellant, one in regard to Survey Nos.
August 23.
1 and the respondents were the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
10,000 out of which Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On April 24, 1943, the vendors executed a fresh agreement of sale in respect of the same field which according to the agreement was to be diverted to number agricultural purposes and thereafter a sale deed was to be executed when it was so diverted.
C. Chatterjee, S. A. Sohni and Ganpat Rai, for respondent No.
2 and 3 and the dispute relates to pre emption on the ground of companyoccupancy which falls under Ch.
It was also alleged that the price was number fixed in good faith.
9,222 and other companyditions.
5, 14 and 16 for a sum of Rs.
In the plaint it was alleged that the transaction of companytract under the documents of April 10, 1943, and April 24, 1943, companystituted a sale and therefore it was subject to respondent Sridhars prior right of pre emption.
The suit was therefore decreed by the trial companyrt and on appeal by the District Judge.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court at Nagpur passed in second appeal No.
167 of 1955.
500 was paid as earnest money.
1720 of 1945 companyfirming the decree of the District Judge.
XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, hereinafter called the Code.
In pursuance of this agreement the vendors applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Akola, on August 12, 1943, for diver sion under s. 58 of the Code and sanction was accorded on January 22, 1944, subject to payment of premium of Rs.
In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the appellant was defendant No.
8,500 out of which Rs.
On April 22, 1943, the vendors executed a lease of Survey No.
15/1 for 14 years in favour of Kisanlal and Sitaram who were defendant Nos.
