JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This appeal commands the earnest attention of this Court, as the appellants–plaintiffs have instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) impugning the judgment and decree dated 04.10.1993, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which affirmed, in their entirety, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 23.11.1992, passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff, seeking declaratory relief under the provisions governing pre-emption.

2. As delineated in the pleadings, it is the appellants’ case that the respondent–plaintiff approached the learned Trial Court with a claim for possession under the right of pre-emption, premised on the contentions enumerated hereunder:-

“Tek Chand, son of Udho Dass, and Shankar Dass, son of Tek Chand, residents of Sonepat, sold 69 kanals and 16 marlas of land, comprised in Khewat No. 37, as detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint, to Suraj Bhan, Sarup Singh, and Davinder Singh, the defendant–appellants, by a registered sale deed dated 06.11.1987, for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The plaintiff– respondent, Smt. Niyadri, claiming herself to be a co-sharer in Khewat No. 37 and also a tenant under the vendors, Tek Chand and Shankar Dass, instituted a suit for pre-emption in respect of the said land. The plaintiff challenged the sale consideration, contending that the actual consideration paid by the vendees to the vendors was Rs. 1,75,000/-, reflecting the true market value of the land. The suit was accordingly filed seeking appropriate relief under the pre-emption provisions.”

3. On being duly served with summons, the respondents appeared through their counsel and submitted a written statement resisting the claim, wherein they set out the following contentions in detail:-

“The vendees contested the suit, disputing the locus standi of the plaintiff, Smt. Niadri, as either co-sharer or tenant. They contended that the sale was lawfully effected for Rs. 2,25,000/-, duly paid to the vendors, and that the joint khewat had been partitioned prior to execution and registration of the sale deed, with the relevant portions falling to Tek Chand and Shankar Dass. It was further alleged that the plaintiff’s name had been fraudulently recorded in the revenue records as a tenant, which was later found to be fictitious. The vendees claimed reimbursement of stamp duty and registration charges, asserted that the plaintiff was estopped from instituting the suit by her conduct, and contended that the suit was improperly valued and devoid of any cause of action.”

4. Having undertaken a detailed scrutiny of the pleadings and the submissions of the parties, the Court finds it appropriate to delineate the precise matters in controversy and, to facilitate a coherent and structured adjudication, frames the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has superior right to pre-empt the sale in question? OPP

2. Whether the sale consideration has been fixed in good faith and has been actually paid. If not so to what effect? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct? If so to what effect? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? If so to what effect? OPD

5. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? If so to what effect? OPD

6. Whether vendee-defendant incurred expenses on stamp and registration? If so how much and to what effect? OPD

6-A. Whether the plaintiff was aware of the sale in question? OPD

7. Relief

5. In the wake of the framing of issues and after allowing both parties ample opportunity to adduce evidence, the learned Trial Court rendered a decree in favour of the respondent–plaintiff. The appeal filed by the appellants–defendants was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Challenging