BHARGAVA, J—.This civil second appeal arises out of a suit for preemption.

2. The suit property was sold by Naraindas on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor sons Nandkishore and Satnarain for a sum of Rs. 600/- on 19th December, 1956 by means of a registered sale deed in favour of Madanmohan respondent No. 3. Shrinarain and Samrathmal filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers in the chowk, staircase and entrance of the suit house. Naraindas and his minor son Nandkishore were also impleaded as defendants in the suit.

3. The suit| was contested by all the defendants. One of the pleas raised by Nandkishore in his written statement was that the sale of the suit property by his father Naraindas was without any legal necessity and was not binding on his share. Madanmohan vendee stated that after purchasing the property he had spent Rs. 656/11/- in its improvement which he was entitled to get in case the plaintiffs were allowed to pre-empt the property. In reply to the plaintiffs allegation that the real price for which the property was purchased was Rs. 400/-. He stated that actually Rs. 600/- the price entered in the sale deed was paid.

4. Before the institution of the suit for pre-emption by Shrinath and Samrith Mal, the minor sons of Naraindas had instituted suit No. 220 of 1957 for cancellation of sale for want of legal necessity the property being ancestral. In the alternative they claimed a right of preemption of the share of Naraindas. This suit was contested by Madanmohan vendee. Plaintiffs to the pre-emption suit also applied though at a very late stage when even the arguments in the case had been heard, to be made parties in the suit. But their application was rejected. The suit resulted in the decree in favour of Nandkishore and Naraindas. The sale was set aside to the extent of their shares in the property and further a decree for preemption was granted as regards the share of Naraindas. The vendee did not prefer an appeal against the decree. After this decree was passed, further objection was taken on behalf of Nandkishore that the sale having been set aside in suit No. 220 of 1957 by a decree of the court, there was nothing left to be pre-empted. In the alternative it was stated that they had a preferential right of preemption as compared to the plaintiffs in the preemption suit. Previously it was also pleaded that the suit for preemption and suit No. 220 of 1957 should be consolidated but no orders were passed in this regard.

5. The trial court framed necessary issues and evidence had been led and the parties were heard. It dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the sale had been set aside and there remained nothing to be pre-empted. Plaintiffs went in appeal and the learned Senior Civil Judge set aside the decree and remanded the case directing the plaintiffs to implead Satnarain another minor son of Naraindas in the suit because after the decree in suit No. 220 of 1957, he was to be regarded as a rival pre-emptor. accordingly Satnarain was also impleaded as defendant in the plaintiffs suit. He also filed a separate written statement and took up the same pleas which were taken by Nandkishore namely that there was no subsisting sale and as such the suit for preemption must fail and alternatively that he had a preferential right of preemption. Some more issues were framed and the parties adduced their evidence. The trial court eventually decreed the plaintiffs suit. Vendees claimed with regard to the money spent by him in making improvements after the sale was also disallowed. Two appeals were preferred against this decree one by Nandkishore and Satnarain and the other by the vendee Madanmohan. The learned Senior Civil Judge affirmed the decree of the trial court holding that the decree passed in suit No. 220 of 1957 had no binding effect upon the plaintiffs as they were not parties to that suit. The learned Judge also agreed with the trial court so far as the vendees claim was concer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document