Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Mehar vs Udmi Ram And Ors. on 4 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)144PLR140
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
ORDER Viney Mittal, J.
1. The defendant-vendee Ram Mehar has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiff-Udmi Ram had filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption regarding the land in question. It was claimed by him that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had sold the suit land to the vendees through a registered sale deed dated July 21, 1977 and the pre-emptor being a co-sharer in the suit land had a superior right in the suit land.
3. The suit was contested by the vendees. They look various technical objections.
4. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence available on the record, found that the plaintiff was a co-sharer of the suit land and as such had a preferential right to purchase the suit property.Consequently, the suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 16,672/- less l/5th pre-emption amount to be paid on or before October 3, 1979. It was further directed that on failure to pay the said amount, the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed.
5. The matter was taken up in appeal by the vendees. The learned first Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. On the basis of such re-appraisal, the learned First Appellate Court also came to the similar conclusions as had been arrived at by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the vendees was dismissed.
6. The vendees have now chosen to file the present Regular Second Appeal.
7. I have heard Shri Mukul Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and with his assistance, have also gone through the record of this case.
8. The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the pre-emptor had failed to deposit the pre-emption amount as per the decree passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, his suit should be deemed to have been dismissed.
9. I am afraid, the aforesaid argument is not available to the learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of deciding this appeal by this Court as the question whether the amount has been deposited by the pre-emptor within the stipulated period or not, will have to be done into by the Executing Court as and when the execution proceedings are initiated by the plaintiff/decree-holder. In such proceedings, the defendant-appellant would be at liberty to take up all such objections as may be available to him under the law.
10. No other point has been urged.
11. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present Regular Second Appeal.
12. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.