( 1 ) ARGUMENTS heard.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 20-8-1971 and upheld by the first appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1981. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on different grounds than the grounds on which the first appellate Court decreed the suit. The first appellate court also declared the share of the plaintiff as 1 /3 in the suit property instead of 4/9 as declared by the trial Court.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the property in dispute, situated in the city of bikaner, was belonging to one Ganga Das and Mool Chand Ganga Das had 2/3 share whereas Mool chand had 1/3 share in the suit property, Ganga Dass had four sons, moti Lal, Raman Lal, Shanker Lal and Shiv ratan. Shiv Ratan died in the year 1931 leaving behind his widow Smt. Jethi, who is the plaintiff. Moti Lal and Raman Lal separated from Ganga Das in the year 1937, Shanker lal s/o Ganga Das and Smt. Jethi widow of predeceased son of Ganga Das, were living together in the house in dispute. As per the old law, according to Ganga Das, Smt. Jethi plaintiff had only right of maintenance. Ganga Das in his lifetime, executed a tamliknama on 18-1-1955 in favour of his son Shanker Lal and gave his 2/3 share in the property in dispute to said Shanker Lal. The copy of the Tamliknama is placed on record as Ex. AS. This document is not in dispute. Ganga Das died in the year 1961 and on 18-10-1966 said Shanker Lal sold the entire house to the defendant-appellant laxmi Chand by registered sale-deed. Plaintiff Smt. Jethi, daughter-in-Law of deceased ganga Das filed this present suit for preemption on the ground that she is co-sharer in the house in dispute, therefore, has prior right to purchase the share in house which has been sold by said Shanker Lal to Laxmi chand under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by only the purchaser present-appellant defendant laxmi Chand on various groun ds including the ground of collusion between the plaintiff and other defendants, namely, with shanker Lal and Raman Lal. The case of the plaintiff Smt. Jethi was that Ganga Das had 2/3 share and by devolution of interest upon ganga Das after the death of Mool Chand, ganga Das became the owner of the entire house. The plaintiff pleaded that she being heir of Ganga Das being widow of Ganga dass son Sbiv Ratan, she got 1/3 share in the entire house after the death of Ganga das as in the strip of her husband she was the only successor to the share of her husband. The defendants contention is that the entire house was belonging to Shanker Lal and the plaintiff is not co-sharer in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim the property by pre-emption. The defendant-appellant submitted that in fact the plaintiff separated herself from the family of Ganga Das and the property was given by Ganga Das to Shanker Lal by registered (deed) dated 18-1-1955 which was registered on 20-1-1955. The possession Tamliknama was given to Shanker Lal and he started living in the house as absolute owner of the house since then. The defendant-appellant also denied that there was share of Mool chand in the property and it devolved upon ganga Das and specifically pleaded that mool Chand has no share in the suit property. It is also pleaded that Shanker Lal became owner of the property by adverse possession, therefore, also there arises no question of Mool chanels share in the property at the time of alienation by said Shanker" lal and it could not have inherited even by ganga Das. The defendant purchaser submitted that Ganga Gas was not legal heir or successor of Mool Chand. However, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the defendant did not disclose any other heir of mool Chand in the written statement.

( 5 ) SEVERAL issues were framed but for the purpose of deciding this appeal it will be sufficient to notice that the trial Court while deciding issue No