Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Marlas Hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 23.4.1988by way of pre-emption pre emption of agricultural land land.

4. Upon notice, the defendant No.1/appellant herein appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement dated 12.11.1988in in which the co-sharership co sharership of the plaintiff was denied and it was further pleaded that suit is barred in partial preemption. It was also pleaded that the suit land was bought for valuable consideration; that the suit is time-barred barred etc. Defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte before the learned trial court vide order dated 05.09.1988 05.09.1988. The plaintiff 2 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027616 filed replication dated 21.11.1988 reasserting the averments made in the plaint.

Marl

7. The Ld. Trial Court decided the issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of defendant no.1 by observing that the plaintiff is co-sharer co only in part of the suit land measuring 64 Kanals and 4 Marlas comprising in Khewat No Nos. 250 and 307. While deciding Issue ssue No. 5, the Ld. Trial Court found found that as the plaintiff has sought preemption as co-sharer co sharer of the land of Khewat in which he is recorded as co-sharer, co therefore, the suit is not bad for partial preemption. Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.1990, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit by way of preemption to the extent of 1/8th share of the land measuring 8 Kanals comprising in Khewat Nos.. 250 and 307 on payment of 45,550/ 45,550/-less Rs.8,000/- paid net Rs.37,555/- to be deposited by the plaintiff before 14.01.1991 failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs.

8. The appellant/defendant No.1 went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.1992without 09.01.1992without touching the issue No. 11; and only discussed issue No. 5 holding that it is not case of partial preemption and that the pre-emptor of a property can claim superior right of pre-emption emption only in respect of those rectangle Numbers in which he is a co-sharer, sharer, by virtue of purchase of a part thereof. It was accordingly held that the suit was therefore, therefor , not bad for partial pre pre-emption; and 4 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027616 appeal of defendant no.1 was dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal.