Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal It arises out of a suit instituted by them claiming pre-emption in respect of a room which is alleged to have been sold to defendant No.1 by defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and also for a permanent injunction against the said defendant preventing him from opening a door in the western wall of the room with a view to enable the inmates of his house to use the court-yard of the plaintiffs house.

2. The disputed small room appears to be a part of the plaintiffs house and lies on the western side of the house ; but admittedly on the case in the plaint, the said room was owned and occupied by defendants 3 and 4. How they came to own it is not explained, but that is immaterial. This small room opens on the eastern side towards the common court-yard of the house, and it is also the admitted case of the plaintiffs that the court-yard was being used jointly by the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4, who were in occupation of the room, for their convenience. The plaintiffs further alleged that some six days before the institution of this suit on 6th of August, 1948, they noticed that defendant No. l, who has his house adjoining the disputed Kotari on the western side was making certain constructions on the Kotari, and was opening a door towards the west connecting the Kotari with his own house. It was then that- the plaintiffs say they learnt that the Kotari in question had been sold to defendant No. 1 by defendants 3 and 4. They accordingly filed the suit making the prayers aforesaid.

3. The suit has been resisted by the defendant No.l alone. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appear to have accepted the claim of the plaintiffs, while the defendant No. 4 did not appear in the litigation at all. The defendant No. 1 claimed that the room in question had been sold to him by defendants 3 and 4 on the 15th of May, 1943, for a sum of Rs. 81/-, and in pursuance of the sale he obtained delivery of possession." He accordingly claimed that he was entitled to make the constructions in question, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs suit. They held that although the plaintiffs may have a right of pre-emption in respect of Kotari in question, the right was clearly barred. They further found that the defendant No. 1 was entitled to open a door in the western wall of the room, and to use the court-yard in question which was a common court-yard for the use of both the plaintiffs and the vendors, defendants 3 and 4. Mr. Jain on behalf of the appellants contends that the contesting defendant relied upon an unregistered sale deed for the purpose of proving transfer in his favour, and the sale deed in question being inadmissible in evidence, the terms of the sale could not be proved by evidence aliunde. He, therefore, contends that the defendant No. 1 acquired no title to the disputed room by virtue of the transfer in his favour made by the defendants Nos. 3 and 4

5. Strictly speaking this question of transfer in favour of defendant No. 1 does not arise having regard to the frame of the suit itself. The suit is on the basis that there had been a completed transfer in favour of his defendant, and that consequently the plaintiffs were entitled to pre-empt in respect of this property. But that apart, we do not think there is any substance in the contention of the learned counsel. It is true that the document being unregistered could not be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving the transaction of sale; but the transfer in favour of the defendant No. 1 could be proved by oral evidence in the case. The transferee has said that the property had been sold to him for a sum of Rs. 81/-, and that he accordingly obtained delivery of possession. Khichchu, one of the vendors, has been examined in the case. He also admitted that the room in question had been sold to the defendant No. 1, and the courts below appear to have accepted the evidence of the defendant th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document