135000/ as directed by the trial companyrt.
in both the suits the sale price as inserted in the sale deed was questioned.
they were deprived of this right by the amending act of 1960 and s. 31 of the act as amended made the amendment retrospective in its operation by prohibiting the companyrts from passing decrees inconsistent with the amended act.
the facts relevant for the present appeal may number briefly be stated.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated january 6 1967 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil regular first appeal number 152 of 1958.
the appellants had based their right of pre emption in their suit on the ground of their being proprietors of the village.
brij bans kishore mahabir prasad jain and j.p.
135000/ .
the land in suit was sold by a registered sale deed on june 18 1957 by kashi harchand and bhagoo respondents 4 to 6 in this companyrt to respondents 7 to 18 for an ostensible companysideration of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. this appeal on certificate has been preferred by one set of pre emptors plaintiffs in suit number 556 of 1958 against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana allowing the rival plaintiffs pre emptors appeal by reducing the pre emption money and passing a decree of pre emption on payment of rs.
the appellants right to appeal was challenged on the ground that the amendment of the punjab pre emption act hereinafter called the act by the punjab act x of 1960 had deprived them of their right of pre emption with retrospective effect.
it appears that on april 28 1958 a statement was made on behalf of the vendees admitting the right of the pre emptors in both the suits and companyceding that a decree be passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in the first instance and on their failure to pay the amount the appellants be held entitled to a decree on payment of rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1156 of 1967.
on behalf of the rival pre emptors plaintiffs in suit number 558 of 1958 who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in this companyrt a preliminary objection was taken to the competency of the present appeal.
the right of respondents 1 to 3 who had sued as sons of the vendors remained undisturbed by the amendment.
105800/ instead of rs.
gupta for respondent number.
apparently all other objections raised by the vendees to the right of the pre emptors were dropped.
gupta for the appellants.
1 and 2.
the two suits were companysolidated and the plaintiffs in each suit were joined as defendants in the other suit as companytemplated by s. 28 of the act.
135000/ .
the appellants and respondents 1 to 3 instituted two separate suits for pre emption in respect of this sale.
it was on this basis that the preliminary objection was pressed before us.
c. mahajan and m.s.
