Special statutes governing pre-emption override general limitation laws. Appellate courts cannot reverse findings of fact based on conjectures or speculative inferences regarding familial relationships; they must rely on evidence, and revenue records created prior to litigation are valid proof of possession.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

RSA-1544-2003

1. This Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2000, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Karnal reversed the judgment and decree passed by the joint trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.02.2003.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant–plaintiff claimed himself to be a tenant over the suit property, fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint, and asserted that he possesses a superior right of pre-emption. It was pleaded that defendant–Raj Kali, the recorded owner of the suit land, executed a sale deed in favour of Zile Singh, son of Indraj Singh, and Ram Swarup, son of Chhajju Ram. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant–plaintiff instituted a suit for pre-emption. In compliance with the direction of the learned Civil Judge, the requisite Zare-Panjum amount was deposited. Notice of the suit was duly served upon the defendants. Defendant–Raj Kali failed to appear and was, accordingly, proceeded against as ex-parte and on 18.03.1994 was given up.

3. The suit was contested by defendants Ram Swarup and Zile Singh, who filed separate written statements. They asserted that the sale deed dated 26.02.1991 executed in their favour is legal, valid, and binding, and further denied the status of the plaintiff as a tenant in possession of the suit land. It was, thus, contended that the plaintiff had no locus or right to seek pre-emption.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication, wherein the averments and preliminary objections raised in the written statements were categorically denied, while the assertions made in the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous examination of the pleadings on record, as well as the rival submissions advanced by the parties, the learned trial Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the points in controversy and, for the purposes of a structured, systematic, and legally coherent adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption in respect of the suit as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit land was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and this price was fixed in good faith and was actually paid to the vendor, if so to what effect ? OPD

3. If issue no. 2 is proved then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no cause action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

7. Relief

5. The parties were afforded full and fair opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the appellant–plaintiff.

5.1 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed, an appeal was preferred by defendant–Zile Singh alone. The learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge. It was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit land as a tenant, and the findings returned by the learned trial Court on Issues No.1, 4, and 5 were found to be erroneous, illegal, null, and void. It was further hel