The right to institute a civil suit for pre-emption is based on the ground that the consideration is fraudulently stated in the sale-deed, and the civil Court has no jurisdiction over the enforcement of the right of pre-emption unless the consideration is fraudulently stated in the sale-deed.

Pollock, J—The 1st defendant sold her occupancy holding to the 2nd defendant by a registered sale-deed in which the consideration was stated to be Rs. 200. She had given notice to the plaintiff landlord under section 12-A (1) of the Tenancy Act and the landlord had replied that the consideration had been fraudulently inflated and he was willing to purchase the holding for Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 which was its real value. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff to pre-empt the field for Rs, 125. Both the lower Courts have held that Rs. 200 was in fact paid and was a fair price. The suit was under section 12-A (15) of the Tenancy Act, and the trial Court held in effect that as the consideration had not been fraudulently stated in the sale-deed but represented the actual consideration the suit did not lie. The learned Additional District Judge took a different view and was unable to see why the landlord should lose his right of preemption merely because he had failed to prove that the consideration was not fraudulently stated in the sale-deed.

2. I dealt with the same point in Shridhar v. Rushi,1945 AIR(Nag) 865 and held that the right to institute a civil suit is based on the ground that the consideration is fraudulently stated in the sale-deed and that the basis for the suit disappears if the consideration was not fraudulently stated. Under section 105 (a) of the Tenancy Act the civil Court has no jurisdiction over any matter as to the enforcement of the right of pre-emption under section 12-A except under sub-section (15) of section 12-A. The civil Court therefore, in my opinion, has no jurisdiction unless the consideration is fraudulently stated in the sale-deed. As I said in the previous case, I see no reason why the landlord should be entitled to take up the time of the civil Courts on the allegation that the consideration has been fraudulently inflated, if he is in fact willing to pay that consideration. Counsel however are agreed that the same point arises in a number of pending appeals; and it stems to me desirable that these appeals should all be heard together before a Division Bench so that the point may be authoritatively settled.

3. Let the papers be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice with the recommendation that the case be placed before a Division Bench.