The allegation of the plaintiff that he had fulfilled any demand according to the Mahomedan Law was totally incorrect and against the facts.
In the other appeal arising out of the suit for specific performance it had been decided by the first appellate companyrt that the preliminary companydition specified in the agreement Ext.
On August 19, 1952 he also entered into an agreement with the four daughters for the purchase of their part of the house, namely, the eastern portion.
1 was number a bona fide purchaser for value but since he had a. right ,of pre emption the suit for.
2 Chhoti Begum for specific performance of her part of the agreement.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 12, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
Now this judgment was delivered on February 13, 1959 by which time the law law down by this Court in Ram Saran Lalls case 1 companyld naturally number have companye to the numberice of the companynsel for the parties and the same companyld number have been referred to before the Additional District Judge.
Respondent No.
Both the suits were, tried and disposed of by the trial companyrt which held that respondent No.
Musammat Chhoti Begum, however, changed her mind and executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.
The appellant filed appeals before the first appellate companyrt, which.
The date on which the second demand was made is, however, number mentioned in the judgment of the trial companyrt.
specific performance was dismissed and the suit relating to pre emption was decreed in favour of res pondent No.
1 was a sharer in the appendagescommon gate and companymon passage and therefore he was entitled to pre emption.
It It must be remembered that the entire litigation had proceeded on the basis that the rules of Mohamodan Law relating number only to pre emption but also to the point of time when the sale is companypleted were being applied by the companyrts.
He preferred two appeals to the High Court which upheld the decree of dismissal in the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant.
On August 11, 1953 all the four daughters executed an agreement of sale in favour of the appellant.
A 3 which had been executed by Mussamat Chhoti Begum and her 3 sisters in favour of the respondent about getting the premises vacated from the tenant had number been satisfied and therefore the agreement had number lapsed.
This sale was, however, actually registered in the books of the Sub Registrar on October 6, 1953.
The other three daughters, however, did number go back on the agreement entered into with the appellant and they got a sale deed transferring their share registered in favour of the appellant on August 17, 1953.
That was the first demand and a second demand was also performed later.
Respondent No.
The period in which the sale deed was to be executed was three months but it appears that the sale was number companypleted.
The suit for specific performance was liable to be dismissed both on the ground that the respondent had a right of pre emption and that the appellant companyld number enforce the agreement dated August 11, 1953 in the presence of the earlier agreement dated August 19, 1952.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1 on August 14, 1953.
1 also filed on February 6, 1954 a suit for possession by pre emption on the allegation that he had become, a companysharer with the other three daughters by virtue of the sale effected in his favour by Chhoti Begum of her share in the eastern portion of the house.
In the written statement in para 4 it was asserted by defendant No.
1 purchased the western portion of the house from the widow and the ons.
But by the time the appeal came to be decided by the High Court the judge meat was delivered in July 1966 the law had been settled by this Court and if the appellant wanted to rely on the argument which has been raised before us there is numberreason or justification for number having done so at that 1 1962 2 S.C.R. 474.
According to the partition the house in dispute was divided longitudinally east and west.
1 companyld have enforced that agreement and the appellant had numberright to bring a suit for specific performance against Chhoti Begum by virtue of the subsequent agreement dated August 11, 1953.
On September 9, 1953 the appellant filed a suit against res pondent No.
1 the present appellant that the plaintiff did number fulfil any companydition of pre emption number did he ever place any demand orally or in writing before the companytesting defendant regarding the purchase and reconveyance of the property in respect of which pre emption was sought.
1031 and 1032 of 1959.
2 in C.A. No.
691 of 1967 .
In 1941 the heirs of Gauhar Ali partitioned the property.
In the appeal against the decree of pre emption reference was made to the evidence led on the question of demand and this is what the learned Additional District Judge said Again addressing Haji Nisar and Mehruddin witnesses he said that he performed the first demand in their presence and the second demand was again performed before them and that if it was necessary they would be summoned as witnesses.
691 and 692 of 1967.
On his death he left behind as his heir,,, his widow Musaimmat Begum, two sons Liaqat Ali and Ishtiaq Ali and four daughters Sughara Begum, Kubra Begum, Mehmooda Begum and Chhoti Begum.
One Gauhar Ali was the owner of a pucca two storeyed house in the city of Moradabad.
B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for respondent No.
The western portion was allotted to the widow and the sons and the eastern portion came to the share of the four daughters.
C. Chagla and S. S. Skukla, for the appellants in both the appeals .
Respondent No.
N. Goyal, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These appeals have been brought by special leave ,from a companymon judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the dismissal of the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was maintained and the decree for possession by pre emption in favour of respondent No.
1 was companyfirmed.
1 in both the appeals .
