The purchasers filed three second appeals before the High Court against the judgments and the decrees of the 1st Appellate Court and the plaintiff also preferred a second appeal before the High Court in one of the cases against the increase made in the price of the land by the 1st Appellate Court.
All the four second appeals were heard and dismissed by the High Court.
The respondent denied that there was such a customary law companyferring a right of pre emption on a tenant in force in the town of Jagadhri and that in the event of a decree being passed in the suit the plaintiff should be asked to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 by way of companysideration.
The facts in Hazaris case supra were these.
The plaintiff, who was the fathers brother of one Dhara Singh instituted three suits for pre emption of the lands sold by Dhara Singh under three sale deeds on the ground that he had a superior right of pre emption on the basis of his relationship with the vendor as against the purchasers under section 15 1 a of the Act.
131 of 1980 on 26.8.1980 stating that the value of the portion of the property occupied by him was Rs.
The trial companyrt allowed the application made under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code holding that the right of pre emption was heritable and the right to sue survived on the death of the plaintiff in favour of his legal representatives.
It is alleged that in the town of Jagadhri there was in force a customary law under which a tenant in occupation or a building had a right of pre emption.
The respondent opposed the said application companytending that the right of pre emption, even if it existed, was only a personal right of Kishan Chand and was number heritable and, therefore, the appellants were number entitled to be brought on record as the legal representatives of Kishan Chand.
10.000.
After his death application were moved under Order 22, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial companyrt, the respondent filed a revision petition under section 115, Civil Procedure Code before the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Civil Revision No.
3411 of 1983.
Om Prakash sold the entire property including the portion occupied by Kishan Chand to the respondent for a sum of Rs.23,000 under a registered sale deed dated 11.7.1980.
While the second appeals were pending in the High Court, the plaintiff died.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
It was further companytended by the respondent that the suit was liable to be dismissed on the death of Kishan Chand as the right to sue did number survive.
The purchasers took the matter in appeal before the 1st Appellate Court and those appeals were dismissed, but in one of the appeals there was a slight modification in the amount which the plaintiff had to pay to the purchasers.
453 of 1988.
During the pendency of the suit, Kishan Chand died on 8.8.1983.
Aggrieved by the sale of the property in his occupation as a tenant, Kishan Chand filed a suit for pre emption in the Court of the Sub Judge, II Class, Jagadhri in Civil Suit No.
The purchasers having failed in the Letters Patent Appeals filed before the Punjab Haryana High Court against the decrees passed in the second appeals, filed three appeals before this Court by special leave.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Kishan Chand was in possession of a part of the said property as a tenant.
An application was filed under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code by the appellants, who were the legal representatives of Kishan Chand to bring them on record in the place of the original plaintiff, Kishan Chand and to permit them to prosecute the suit further.
3411 of 1983.
The suits were decreed by the trial companyrt.
C. Agarwala for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The two short questions involved in this case are i whether the right of pre emption companyferred on a tenant by a customary law is heritable or number and ii whether on the death of such a tenant, who had filed a suit for pre emption his legal representatives can companytinue the suit.
K. Bansal for the Respondent.
The property in dispute which is a double storied building situated in the town of Jagadhri, District Ambala, Haryana originally belonged to one Om Prakash.
