In a suit for pre-emption, the lessee of the land in suit can be joined as a co-defendant with the vendor and the vendees, where the property in suit is alleged to be in possession of a third person who claims as a lessee, and the genuineness of whose lease is disputed by the plaintiff.

R.S.Narula, J.

1. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition for revision of the order of the trial Court may first be surveyed, in order to appreciate the solitary jurisdictional question of law on which arguments have been addressed at the hearing of this case. For facility of reference, I will call the parties to this litigation by their titles in the Court of the Subordinate Judge.

2. Mst. Nihali defendant No. 1 sold the land in dispute to Man Singh and his three brothers defendants Nos. 2 to 5 by a registered sale-deed, dated June 8, 1967 for Rs. 18,000/-. Two days before the sale, i.e.. on June 6, 1967, Nihali executed a registered lease-deed in respect of the land which forms the subject-matter of this litigation, in favour of Amar Singh defendant No. 6, who has been stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents to be the father-in-law of the vendees. Jagdish son of Sadhu filed a suit for possession in the purported exercise of his right of pre-emption against the vendor and the vendees, and also impleaded therein Amar Singh defendant No. 6, the alleged "essee. Subsequently, Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff in the other suit) also filed a suit for possession of the same land in exercise of his right of pre-emption. Lakshmi Chand also impleaded Amar Singh petitioner as a defendant to his suit.

3. In paragraph 4 of the plaint of the suit filed by Jagdish, it was stated as below:-

-

"That with a view to harm and deprive the plaintiff of his superior right of preemption, defendant No. 1 with collusion and consent of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 vendees, and Shri Karta Ram, their father, hit upon a device and executed a bogus and fabricated lease-deed in favour of defendant No. 6 for a period of Kharif 1967 to Rabi 1987, on a nominal rent of Rs. 300/- per annum, and this lease-deed was got executed and registered on June 6. 1967, i.e., only two days before the execution and registration of the sale-deed." In paragraph 7 of the plaint it was further pleaded:-

- "That the lease-deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 6 is not binding on the plaintiff on the following grounds:-- (i) that in fact no lease was given by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 6. The document is a forgery and fabricated one and got executed by defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 6, father-in-law of Prem Singh vendee, with the sole object of defeating the right of pre-emption;

(ii) that the possession has not passed to the lessee and all is only a made up affair;

(iii) that the lease and the sale formed part of the same transaction, and so the plaintiff is not bound by it."

In paragraph 4 of the written statement of the vendees (defendants 2 to 5), the allegation made in paragraph 4 of the plaint was denied, and it was added that defendant No. 1 had validly executed a lease-deed before the execution of the sale-deed, and the lease-deed would expire in 1987. The averments made In paragraph 7 of the plaint were denied, and it was alleged that the lease-deed was valid, and had been duly executed by the vendor prior to the sale, as she was Incapable of managing her own affairs. It was added that the plaintiff in the present suit had no right to challenge the lease. It was further stated that possession of the land in dispute was with the lessee, and that the lease and the sale were separate transactions. In a preliminary objection raised in the written statement of Amar Singh defendant No. 6, it was urged that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, as regards the lease-deed in his favour. The specific objection was:-

- "The plaintiff who wants to step into the shoes of defendant No. 1 should first get the lease-deed set aside and then file a suit for pre-emption,"

4 By his order, dated February 1, 1969, the Subordinate Judge, First Clfiss, Karnal, repelled the preliminary objection raised by Amar Singh and relying on the judgment of Puranik J., in Marutirao Govindrao v. Nathmal Jodhraj AIR 19