JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.01.1995 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1991 passed by the Trial Court was allowed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of land measuring 7 kanals as detailed in the plaint. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that the original vendor - Labh Singh son of Gajjan Singh - sold the suit land to the defendant-respondent vide sale deed dated 13.10.1988 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- but to defeat the plaintiff-appellant's right of pre-emption, the defendant-respondent got a fictious amount of Rs.50,000/- as sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. It was further averred that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendant-respondent on the spot. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellant being a co-sharer in Khewat No.521 Sq. No.24 as per Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, had a superior right to pre-empt the sale in question made by the vendor in favour of the vendee. The defendant-respondent in his written statement raised preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was time-barred and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. On merits it was stated that the suit land had been sold for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- which was fixed in good faith and actually paid to the vendor. It was specifically pleaded that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the vendor on 06.07.1988 and sale deed was executed on 07.10.1988. It was further the case that the possession was transferred on execution of the sale deed and that Rs.30,000/- was paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Additional plea was also raised by the defendant-respondent regarding stamp and registration charges incurred by him on the registration of the sale deed and the improvement made by him on the suit land. In the replication, the contents of the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied.

3. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1991 decreed the suit on payment of Rs.56,751.50 i.e. Rs.50,000/- as sale consideration, Rs.6,250/- as stamp charges and Rs.501.50 as registration fee. The said amount was directed to be deposited in the treasury within a period of two months from the date of the decree. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondent which appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.1995. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that the plaintiff-appellant had a superior right of pre-emption being a co-sharer and that the sale deed though executed on 07.10.1988 was registered on 13.10.1988 and that the possession was also delivered on 13.10.1988. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground of the suit being barred by limitation. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Sukhnandan Singh etc. Vs. Jamiat Singh & Ors. [1971 (1) SCC 707] and Sardar Singh Vs. Dalip Kaur & Ors. [1981 PLR 611].

6. None has put in appearance on behalf of the defendant-respondent despite service.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

8. In the present case the agreement to sell was executed on 06.07.1988. The sale deed admittedly was executed on 07.10.1988. The plaintiff-appellant had admitted in para 2 of the plaint that the defendant-respondent had obtained possession of the suit land at the time of the execution of the sale deed