Honble MAJMUDAR, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 14.10.1986 in Civil Suit No. 167/80 (old No. 106/79). The appellant herein is the original defendant No. 1 of the said suit. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 to 3 herein) against the present appellant as well as the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 1 to 3 filed the aforesaid suit for pre-emption on the ground that a Haveli bearing Municipal No. 1796 situated at Chowkri Top Khana Desh, Rasta Khutetan, Near Peepla House, Jaipur, was a joint family property. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 4 herein) filed a suit for partition of the said Haveli against the plaintiffs father Bhagwan Sahay and others in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherein a decree for partition was passed on 16.12.1964 and as per the said decree, the house was divided amongst the co-sharers. One of the co-sharer Smt. Bhonri Bai gifted her share to the respondent No. 4 (original defendant No. 2) Chhagan Lal and another co-sharer Smt. Barfi Bai sold her share for Rs. 3000/- to said defendant No. 2 Chhagan Lal and accordingly the defendant No. 2 Chhagan Lal became the owner of the portion of the house belonging to Smt. Bhonri Bai and Smt. Barfi Bai. It is the case of the plaintiffs that portion of the said house was sold by said Chhagan Lal to the present appellant (original defendant No. 1) by way of registered sale deed on 02.09.1975. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the sale price of Rs. 15,000/- was not genuine one as the property was not worth more than Rs. 5100/-. On such and other grounds, the suit for pre-emption was filed by the plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 to 3 herein). In the said suit, it is prayed that the decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the possession of the property be given to them by fixing the price of the portion of the house at 5100/- or at a reasonable price, which the court may fix.

2. The suit was resisted by the present appellant (defendant No. 1 in the suit), who is the purchaser of the portion of the said house. It is the case of the present appellant that the defendant No. 2 Chhagan Lal initially asked the plaintiffs to purchase the portion of the house in question, but the plaintiffs denied the same and, therefore, by their conduct, they waived their right and now they are estopped from claiming the preemption rights. It is the case of the present appellant-defendant No. 1 that since the plaintiffs had no means to purchase the portion of the house, they waived their right of preemption. It is also the say of the defendant No. 1 in the written statement that the sale consideration of Rs. 15000/- is the real consideration. It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that the suit is time-barred. The defendant No. 1 also took the objection to the effect that the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the suit is under-valued. The defendant No. 1 also submitted a separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. At a subsequent stage, the plaintiffs amended the plaint and put the valuation of the suit at Rs. 15,000/- and paid the additional court fee and the learned Civil Judge thereafter passed an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court and ultimately, the plaint was presented before the District Judge on 13.04.1979. The learned trial Judge framed various issues arising out of the pleadings and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1986 decreed the suit. The said judgment and decree is challenged by the present appellant, who was the defendant No. 1 in the suit.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. R.P Garg, appearing for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the trial court has gravely erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the original plaintiffs. It is submitted by Mr. Garg that the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document