On the main issue he found that the said defendants, by obtaining a decree for pre emption before the rival claimants had filed their suit, had become vendees through Court and so the plaintiffs companyld number succeed unless they had a superior right.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and decree dated April 29, 1953, of the former Pepsu High Court in R. S. A. Nos.
Kapur Chand Puri and Tarachand Brijmohan Lal, for respondents Nos.
1,700 from defendants 8 to II and that defendants 8 to 1 1 agreed to pay the balance of the companysideration, amounting to Rs.
It was provided in the decree that in case defendants 8 to I I failed to pay the balance to the vendees on April 27, 1951, the suit should stand dismissed and that if the said balance was paid on that date, the vendees should deliver possession of the land in dispute to them.
Both the parties filed Second Appeals against the decision of the District Judge in the High Court of Patiala questioning that part of the decree which went against them.
To that suit the original vendors were impleaded as defendants 3 to 7, the vendees as defendants I and 2 and the plaintiffs in Suit No.
13 of 1951.
On January 6, 1951, the vendees, i. e., defendants I and 2, and the plaintiffs therein, i. e., defendants 8 to 11 appellants in the present appeal , entered into a companypromise.
The material facts may be recapitulated Defendants 3 to 7 sold the land in dispute to defendants 1 and 2 on August 26, 1949, and the sale deed was registered on February 15, 1950.
It was further agreed that on the payment of the said amount, they should get possession through Court.
The learned Subordinate Judge found all the issues in favour of defendants 8 to 11 and dismissed the suit.
The appellants instituted their suit to pre empt the said sale on August 26, 1950, and obtained a companypromise decree on January 23, 195 1.
Under the terms of the companypromise, the vendees admitted that they had received Rs.
Before the said defendants 8 to 11 deposited the amount in Court under the terms of the companypromise decree, the resondents herein, claiming to be owners of land in the same patti, filed Suit No.
The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to.
231 of 1950 Exhibit P. 26/1 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 11 Class, Faridkot, to pre empt the said sale on the ground, among others, that they bad a right of preemption.
the Additionl District Judge, Faridkot, against the said decree.
231 of 1950 as defendants 8 to 11.
May 20.
1 to 3.
13 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 11 Class, Faridkot, to enforce their right of pre emption.
37,611.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Jagan Nath Kaushal and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
Defendants 8 to 11 companytested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the plaintiffs had numberright of preemption superior to that of theirs, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the whole of the sale companysideration had been fixed in good faith and paid.
On August 26, 1949, defendants 3 to 7 sold the said land to defendants I and 2 for a companysideration of Rs.
They deposited the balance of the amount payable on April 23, 1951, and took possession of the land on May 17, 1951.
255 of 1954.
On August 26, 1950, defendants 8 to 11 instituted a suit, Suit No.
35,911 on the 27th April, 1951,.
As the amount agreed to be paid was in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, they filed the companypromise deed in the Court of the District Judge and on the basis of the said companypromise, the District Judge made a decree dated January 23, 1951.
The material facts are number in dispute and may be briefly stated The dispute relates to a land measuring 179 kanals and 2 marlas, situate in village Wanderjatana.
57 and 130 of 1952, arising out of the judgment and decree dated March 8, 1952, of the Court of Addl.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. This appeal by Special Leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patiala and East Punjab States Union raises an interesting question pertaining to the Law of Preemption.
Defendants 8 to 11 deposited the balance of Rs.
Judge, Faridkot, in Civil Appeal No.
10 of 1952, against the judgment and decree dated December 4, 1951, of the Court of ubJudge 11 Class, Faridkot, in File No.
35,911 on April 23, 1.951, and got possession of the land on May 17, 1951.
