Honble JAIN, J.–Defendant No. 1 Mohan Lal has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24th of September, 1986 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 54/1981, whereby the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for pre-emption in respect of the property, in dispute.

(2). This Court formulated the following substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal:-

1. Whether in absence of any pleading, evidence or issue as to the matters covered by the provisions of Section 6(1)(ii) and (iii) pleading the stair case to be common and/or the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 being those of the owners of the property servient or dominant to the property transferred having been specifically pleaded and established?

2. Whether the plaintiff Thakurji Shri Shyam Sunderji virajmaan through Revati Prasad Sharma has locus standi to file the present suit for pre-emption against the defendants and further whether the temple of plaintiff Thakurji Shri Shyam Sunderji Virajmaan belongs to Meena community or it is a personal property of Revati Prasad Sharma.

(3). Both the learned counsel for the parties argued the case at length on the aforesaid substantial questions of law and in support of their respective contentions cited case law also.

(4). Briefly stated the facts of this second appeal are that on 4th of January, 1969 the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the plaintiff) filed a suit for pre- emption under the provisions of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs temple is situated in Chowkari Topkhana Desh at Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The description of the temple was given in para 1 of the plaint. It was further pleaded that there is one room facing eastern side towards northern side of the temple and one `medhi belonging to defendant No. 2, which has been sold by him to defendant No. 1 through sale deed dated 18th of October, 1968, registered on 13th November, 1968 for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-. A map was also annexed with the plaint. The plaintiffs temple, shops and staircase were shown in yellow colour and the sold property was shown in blue colour. It was also pleaded that there is only one way to go on the said room and `medhi through the staircase and roof of veranda belonging to the plaintiff. There is one door belonging to the plaintiff on the said staircase, which is closed and opened by the plaintiff only. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No. 2, without giving any notice or asking to the plaintiff, sold the aforesaid room, `medhi and roof of veranda to the defendant No. 2 whereas the plaintiff had preferential right to purchase the said room and `medhi and, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to get the said property after payment of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only), to the defendants. When the plaintiff came to know about the said sale then he immediately told the defendants to sale the said property to the plaintiff after taking a sum of Rs. 3000/- and give possession of the same but the defendants refused for the same, therefore, the cause of action arose on 18th of October, 1968 and the suit was filed within the period of limitation. It was prayed in the plaint that a decree of limitation. It was prayed in the plaint that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the property, as described in Para 2 of the plaint, for possession after payment of Rs. 3000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2.

(5). The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement wherein he denied the contents of the plaint, as mentioned by the plaintiff. The execution and registration of the sale deed was accepted but other contents were denied. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document