JUDGMENT : 

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant– defendant (since deceased), through his legal representatives, against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1987, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff–respondent. The said judgment and decree were affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990.

Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of pre- emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in respect of a share in House No. 4291/2 (old), new No. AMC-1634/III, situated at Ambala City. It was pleaded that the property originally belonged to Tula Ram, who had executed a Will dated 13.01.1955 bequeathing the disputed house in favour of his wife Purni Devi. Upon the death of Tula Ram, Purni Devi became the full and absolute owner of the disputed house.

3. It was further pleaded that Purni Devi died on 01.06.1979, leaving behind her legal heirs, namely the plaintiff, Gian Devi, and the branches of Lachhmi Chand and Sohan Lal, as detailed in the pedigree table. According to the plaintiff, all the heirs inherited the disputed house in equal shares, i.e. 1/4th share each. Lachhmi Chand and Sohan Lal had predeceased, and their respective legal heirs stepped into their shoes.

4. The plaintiff asserted that he was in possession of the entire disputed house. It was pleaded that the legal heirs of Sohan Lal, namely Subhash Chand, Brij Mohan, Vijay Kumari, Lakhbir Chand and Vidya Wati, sold what was described as 1/3rd share in the disputed house to the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 10.8.1981 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-, though in fact they were entitled only to 1/4th share. It was alleged that the sale price mentioned in the sale deed was exaggerated in order to defeat the plaintiff’s right of pre-emption and that the real market value of the share sold was not more than Rs. 4,000/-.

5. The plaintiff claimed that being a co-heir, he had a preferential right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. It was pleaded that no notice of the intended sale was ever given to the plaintiff by the vendors. On coming to know of the impugned sale, the plaintiff requested the defendant to admit his right of pre-emption, but the defendant refused to do so, necessitating the filing of the suit.

6. Upon notice, the defendant filed a written statement admitting the factum of sale and the original ownership of Tula Ram. However, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim of equal shares and asserted that the vendors had 1/3rd share in the disputed house and were competent to sell the same. It was pleaded that the vendors had acquired the share by survivorship and not by inheritance and, therefore, Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable.

7. The defendant further pleaded that the sale consideration of Rs.8,000/- was genuine, was fixed in good faith and was actually paid. It was also pleaded that the disputed house was urban property and no right of pre-emption was available. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale and had consented to the same, and that the plaintiff had earlier declined to purchase the share when offered. It was also pleaded that there was no custom of pre-emption in Ambala City and that the suit was false, vexatious and filed to harass the defendant. Objections regarding locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties and maintainability of the suit were also raised.

8. By way of amendment, the defendant further pleaded that in the event of a decree, he was entitled to reimbursement of stamp and registration charges besides the sale price, and reiterated that the plaintiff had no right to pre-empt the impugned sale.

9. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the pleas raised by the defendant and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.

10. On the basis of th