The right of pre-emption under personal law requires strict compliance with two essential procedural demands: an immediate assertion upon learning of the sale, followed by a formal demand in the presence of two witnesses. Failure to prove these demands renders the claim legally unenforceable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Being aggrieved by the divergent findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.77/2006 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division of Hukkeri dated 20.09.2007 and R.A.No.47/2007 dated 30.08.2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hukkeri. The defendants are before this Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as bellow:

i) The plaintiff filed the suit for preemption to purchase the suit land from defendant Nos.1 to 5 and for consequential relief to direct defendant Nos.1 to 5 to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving ₹50,000/- towards the sale consideration.

ii) The suit schedule property is R.S.No.55/7 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas out of total extent of 1 acre 17 guntas situated at Sultanpur Village of Hukkeri Taluk. The plaintiff contended that he was the owner in possession of the adjoining lands and the suit schedule property was belonging to one Mohammadsab and his wife Rajama. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the distant relatives of the plaintiff and knowing that colluding with defendant No.5, they created a bogus sale deed in favour of defendant No.5.

iii) The sale deed was executed on 23.09.2006 for a consideration of ₹50,000/-. The plaintiff being the cousin of defendant Nos.1 to 4, having the properties adjoining to the suit schedule property, has got first right of preemption as per their personal law.

iv) Therefore, the plaintiff expressed his intention immediately after the sale deed and conveyed his willingness and readiness to purchase the share of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit schedule property. He expressed his intention to purchase the land and informed defendant No.5, the purchaser also. However, they did not respond in favour of the plaintiff and the personal request to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff went in vain.

v) It is stated that such request was made on 27.09.2006 and 01.12.2006. Therefore, there was a cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit for asserting his right of preemption and as such sought the above mentioned reliefs.

vi) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 appeared through their counsels and resisted the suit by filing written statement. The defendants contended that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the owners in actual possession of the land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and they were in need of money for their legal necessity and therefore, they offered to sell the same for valuable consideration of ₹50,000/- to defendant No.5 and such offer was known to everyone in the village including the plaintiff.

vii) Defendant No.5 agreed to purchase the same and accordingly, he being the only person who offered the highest price, they have executed the sale in his favour on 23.09.2006 and handed over the actual possession. It was further contended that the plaintiff has no preferential right to purchase the land, let alone the right of preemption. Inter alia, they also contended that other allegations made by the plaintiff are false and sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that one Smt. Ameena w/o Hasan Nadaf, (2) Maktumbi w/o Abdul Nadaf, (3) Gous Rajesab Nadaf and (4) Meerasab Khadirsab Nadaf, have entered into contract with him to sell the suit property by executing the agreement of sale dated 4/1/1996?

2) Whether the pla