TYAGI, J.—This is defendants first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Churu dated 21st March, 1972 in a suit for pre-emption.

2. Respondent Mst. Teeja Devi purchased l/3rd portion of a house for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- from Shri Laxmipat defendant No. 2. The plaintiff who claimed himself to be a co-sharer, filed a suit for a decree for pre-emption alleging that he had no knowledge of the sale and that the sale was made by Laxmipat without giving any notice to him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. He also averred that the property was actually sold for Rs. 8,000/- but a fictitious figure of Rs. 10,000/- was mentioned in the sale-deed and he, therefore, prayed that the decree of pre-emption in respect of l/3rd portion of the house belonging to Laxmipat, details whereof were given in para 1 of the plaint, be passed in his favour.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-vendee who came out with a plea that there had been a partition in the family and, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim himself as a co-sharer in respect of the suit property and since a notice was given to the father and uncle of the plaintiff through whom he derived his title and interest in the property, he has no locus standi to file a suit for pre-emption. It was however denied that the real sale price of the property was 8,000/-.

4. The learned trial Judge after framing as many as 5 issues and recording the evidence produced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the property was sold by Shri Laxmipat to respondent Mst. Teeja Devi for Rs. 10,000/-. He also held that though notices of sale were given to the father and uncle of the plaintiff but these notices cannot bind the plaintiff and cannot come in his way to seek a decree for pre-emption. The learned Judge further held that the house in question was never partitioned by metes and bounds and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no interest in the property In these circumstances the plaintiff was declared as a co-sharer with respect to disputed property within the meaning of the term co-sharer as defined in the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. In view of these findings the learned Judge parsed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the plaintiff should deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the Court upto 18th May, 1972 and thereafter vendee Mst. Teeja Devi must execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and get it registered in respect of l/3rd of the house purchased by her for Rs. 10,000/-.

5. Smt. Teeja Devi has filed this appeal against the said judgment.

6. The first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Tolaram P. W. 6, the father of the plaintiff, has himself admitted in the witness box that the partition in the family had taken place and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim himself as a co-sharer in respect of the share of the property belonging to Laxmipat. It was further argued that the plaintiff usually resides in Nepal and, therefore, he does not require the property for his own use Further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff derives his right in the property through his father who was served with a notice of the intention of sale but he refused to purchase the property from Laxmipat and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot now seek a relief by way of pre-emption when his father through whom he derived his right in the property, refused to purchase it.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand drew my attention to the deed of sale executed by Laxmipat in favour of respondent Teeja Devi wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the property was not divided and was a joint property and, therefore, the interest of the plaintiff respondent who was undoubtedly a member of the family to which Laxmipat belongs, is quite obvious and, therefore, he can sue for pre-emption as a co-sharer. As regards notice, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document