The Act was held to be prospective in operation and did not apply to sales completed before its commencement, as per Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 10 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 2nd January, 2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2011, titled as Prem Kumar and another versus Tilak Raj and others.

2. Vide judgment and decree, dated 2nd January, 2013, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree has been affirmed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), vide judgment and decree, dated 6th September, 2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2013, titled as Prem Kumar and another versus Tilak Raj and others.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

4.1. Plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession by way of pre-emption of land, bearing khata No. 252, khatauni No. 315, khasra Nos. 1495, 1496, 3494/1497, 3499/1499, kita 5 area 4 kanal 8 marlas, alongwith one kacha room slateposh, measuring 4.50 x 4.50 meters and khata No. 253, khatauni No. 316, khasra No. 3493/1497, 3496/1498, 3498/1499, kita 3, area 19 marlas of ¼ share area 4 marla, alongwith one kacha room slateposh, measuring 4.20 x 4.20 meters, situated in Tika Sujanpur, Tappa Bhaleth, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’).

4.2. The said relief has been sought on the ground that the plaintiffs are having the preferential rights of pre-emption. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was owned by defendants No. 2 to 8 and the plaintiffs, as, they have also been recorded as co-sharers alongwith the other co-sharers. Defendants No. 2 to 8, without any notice to the plaintiffs, have sold the suit land, alongwith structure, in favour of defendant No. 1, vide sale deed, dated 8th February, 2010. The amount of sale consideration, as shown in the sale deed, is also stated to be not as per the market value, rather, the sale consideration is stated to have wrongly been mentioned in the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, value of the suit land was not more than Rs. one lakh.

4.3. The plaintiffs have further asserted that defendants No. 2 to 8 have not served notices, as required, under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Pre-Emption Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

4.4. According to the plaintiffs, the cause of action, for filing the suit has arisen on 8th February, 2010, when the sale deed was executed and lastly, in the month of January, 2011, when the defendants refused to acknowledge the right of the plaintiffs in Village Sujanpur, Tappa Bhaleth, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made by the plaintiffs to decree the suit.

6. The suit has been contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 has contested and resisted the suit, by filing separate written statement, by taking the preliminary objections that the suit is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit; that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their own act and conduct; and that the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The factual position, with regard to the sale of the suit land by defendants No. 2 to 8, has not been disputed. According to defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs were duly apprised and requested to purchase the suit land, but, they have refused to purchase the suit land. The suit land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and it has been denied that the value of the suit land is not more than Rs. one lakh.

8. Defendant No. 1 has also t