IMPORTANT POINT
.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

This appeal was filed by Bhuru who was successor-in-interest of Matadeen/defendant in the original suit.

2. A suit for possession was filed by respondents against Matadeen brother of Bhuru on the ground that Matadeen had preempted the sale of 13 kanals of land in aforesaid Suit No. 104 dated 24.05.1980 titled as Matadeen v. Chandgi Ram and others. The said land was sold by one Gopal son of Ganga Ram for a sale consideration of Rs. 19500/- in favour of plaintiffs Chandgi Ram and others vide registered sale deed dated 20.06.1979. The suit was decreed by Sub Judge, First Class, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.1981 subject to depositing Rs. 19,500/- as a sale consideration of Rs. 2437.50/- as stamp charges minus ?th pre-emption money already deposited by Matadeeen. The amount was to be deposited on or before 25.09.1981.

3. Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1981 was dismissed by Additional District Judge-II, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.1984. Matadeen remained successful in further appeals upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Matadeen had in execution of aforesaid decree statedly taken possession of the suit land on 05.03.1983.

4. Plaintiff-Chandgi Ram and others by way of suit for possession alleged that Matadeen pre-emptor in the suit for preemption had not deposited the full decretal amount of Rs. 21937.50/- as per terms of the decree dated 25.08.1981 and deposit was made short by Rs. 500/- and therefore, Matadeen did not acquire any right title or interest in the suit land and the alleged delivery of possession in pursuance to pre-emption decree was inconsequential or ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs who were owners and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. They further claimed that the defendant be restraint from interfering in their possession. Alternatively, plaintiff pleaded that in the event of plaintiffs being not held to be in possession of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit or they were found to be dispossessed during pendency of the suit then a decree of possession of the suit land be granted in their favour and defendant be restraint from alienating the suit and creating any encumbrance over the suit property.

5. Defendant-Matadeen contested the suit. He claimed that he had duly deposited the decretal amount of Rs. 21437.50/- as per terms of the decree-sheet in the above referred pre-emption suit and the plaintiffs had no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit. The claim of the plaintiffs was stated to be contradictory inasmuch as that they claimed themselves to be owners in possession and on the other hand, they sought possession of the land in question.

6. After filing replication, parties went to trial on the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief."

7. Both the parties led their respective evidence to prove their case. Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.1994, declaring the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the suit land and defendant was restraint from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and creating any encumbrance on the strength of decree dated 25.08.1981 passed in suit for pre-emption. The decree of pre-emption was held to be automatically dismissed on 25.09.1981 on account of non-deposit of the decretal amount as ordered by the Court.

8. Defendant-Matadeen went in appeal before the Lower Appellate Court against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.1998 thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. That is, how, present regular sec