Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The instant petition has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Kishtwar in File No.38/Civil Appeal, whereby order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Kishtwar has been set aside.

2. The order dated 03.11.2012 is being challenged in this petition precisely, on the grounds that the finding of the Appellate Court is contrary to the material brought on record and the findings that the issue could not be treated as a preliminary objection is bereft of any legal support; that the Sale Deeds could be taken into consideration as has been rightly done by the trial Court without its formal proof, since no challenge was made against its execution by the respondent No. 1; that the very object of Right of Prior Purchase Act was nullified in the present case, since co- sharers had already inducted strangers to the land in question to which no objection was ever raised by respondent No. 1 and thus he was not entitled to seek partial preemption and the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

4. The trial Court after framing the issued passed an order dated 21.05.2011 by holding that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was debarred from seeking a partial preemption. The trial Court had relied upon the Sale Deeds executed prior to the Sale Deed dated 23.10.2007 executed by (1) Ghulam Mohd in favour of Shah Nawaz and others vide Sale Deed dated 20.08.1998 (2) Mohd Saban in favour of Lases vide Sale Deed dated 23.08.2004 (3) Mushtaq Ahmed in favour of Rukhsana Begum vide Sale Deed dated 09.07.1999 and (4) Mushtaq Ahmed in favour of Bahar Firdous. The trial Court without seeking proof of the aforesaid documents, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on the basis of the certified copies of the Sale Deeds by holding that he is debarred from seeking a partial preemption. The ground on which the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has been held to be not entitled to seek partial preemption was that the land out of the same khasra number even same khewat number had already been alienated vide different Sale Deeds and the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has sought to exercise his right of preemption with regard to those transactions, therefore, the suit was hit by doctrine of partial preemption.