9,222 and other companyditions.
The suit was therefore decreed by the trial companyrt and on appeal by the District Judge.
1720 of 1945 companyfirming the decree of the District Judge.
500 was paid as earnest money.
It was also alleged that the price was number fixed in good faith.
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.
15/1 for 14 years in favour of Kisanlal and Sitaram who were defendant Nos.
On February 1, 1944, the sale deed was executed by the vendor in favour of the appellant and the companysideration in the sale deed was Rs.
The appellant took an appeal to the High Court which also companyfirmed the decree of the subordinate companyrts.
2 and 3 in the suit and are respondents Nos.
15/1 for Rs.
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.
On April 22, 1943, the vendors execute a lease of Survey No.
XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, hereinafter called the Code.
2,000 was paid as earnest money and the other in regard to Survey No.
In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the appellant was defendant 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.
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.
2 and 3 in this appeal.
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 circumstances of this case it is number necessary to go into this matter.
8,500 out of which Rs.
5, 14 and 16 and the balance of the price was paid before the Registrar.
In pursuance of this agreement the vendors applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Akola, on August 12, 1943, for diversion under s. 58 of the Code and sanction was accorded on January 22, 1944, subject to payment of premium of Rs.
The appellant was to pay the companyts of diversion as well as the premium.
These allegations were denied.
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.
2 and 3 and the dispute relates to pre emption on the ground of companyoccupancy which falls under Ch.
On April 16, 1943, the vendors executed a registered sale deed in regard to Survey Nos.
17,722.
1 and the respondents were the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
5, 14 and 16 for a sum of Rs.
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.
10,000 out of which Rs.
