The plaintiff was entitled to join the claim for a declaration regarding the lease deed with the suit for pre-emption, and the court had jurisdiction to hold an inquiry regarding the transaction of sale and the alleged lease deed in the same suit.

Puranik, J—The applicant Marutirao Govindrao Kunbi instituted a suit for pre-emption against non-applicant 1 Nathmal and non-applicant 2 Narayandas. One Babulal owned field survey No. 8/l. The plaintiff-applicant is a co-occupant and claims pre-emption as Babulal Naranyandas sold the field to Nathmal on 19th June 1944.

2. The plaintiff-applicant denied the consideration as stated in the sale-deed and stated that the real value of the property was Rs. 1300 though the sale deed mentions Rs. 4000. He further stated in the plaint that the allegation in the sale deed that the field was let out to defendant 2, Narayandas by lease deed dated 17-2-1944 was false. According to the plaintiff the lease deed dated 17th February 1944 is bogus and has been obtained from the original vendor by defendants l and 2 collusively with a view to clogging the plaintiff's right of pre-emption. Defendant 2 is a near relation of defendant 1. The field is in the possession of defendant 1 since the purchase, and defendant 2 was never in possession by virtue of the alleged lease. He therefore claimed pre-emption on payment of Rs. 1300 or such other amount as would be fixed, and he prayed that be should be placed in possession of the field by having it declared that the lease deed dated 17th February 1944, said to have been executed in favour of defendant 2, by the original owner of the field was bogus and did not in any way affect the plaintiff's right of pre-emption.

3. Defendant 2 claimed to be discharged from the suit stating that he was not interested in the pre-emption, and defendant 1 also asked that defendant 2 should be discharged from the suit as he was not a necessary party. The plaintiff, however, argued that both the defendants were necessary parties to the suit as he had challenged the allegations in the sale deed and wanted a decision that the lease was bogus and did not affect his right of pre-emption.

4. The lower Court, however, held by its order dated 15th November 1944, that the genuineness or otherwise of the lease deed could not be gone into in a pre-emption suit. It therefore discharged defendant 2 from the suit and is proceeding with the suit for pre-emption only. It is against this order that this application for revision is filed in this Court.

5. I am not aware of any law which prevents the Court from trying a suit as laid. The plaintiff's case is for pro emption under Section 183, Berar Land Revenue Code, and subs. (2) of that section permits the Court to examine the transaction and fix a fair consideration for the interest to be pre-empted. The plaintiff in this suit is asking the Court to examine the transaction of sale in favour of defendant 1. In that sale deed in favour of defendant 1 there are recitals regarding the lease deed. There are also recitals regarding consideration. The plaintiff wants the Court to examine those recitals and hold that the lease is bogus, that defendant 1 himself is in possession of the field and that the consideration, viz., Rs. 4000 as stated therein, is also not true, the value of the property being only Rs. 1300. Under the terms of Section 183, Berar Land Revenue Code itself the Court is bound to examine the transaction and cannot say that it will not go into the question of lease which it has been asserted, has been introduced in the sale-deed by the defendants with a view to defeating the rights of the pre-emptor as stated by him in the plaint. On pre-emption the plaintiff is entitled to be placed in possession of the property, and it is but proper that he should have good title on payment. If, as the plaintiff says, the lease is bogus, and if defendant 1 himself is in possession, defendant 2 being merely a benamidar, the plaintiff is entitled to have that point cleared up in this very suit instead of being driven to another suit. There is nothing in the Berar Land Revenue Code stating that an inquiry of the nature contemplated by the plaintiff in this suit should not be held. Inasmuch a