Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

However, Kitabo as well as Masri sold only 12 kanals of land each out of their share through two different sale deeds. It was mentioned in the sale deed that Kitabo sold 12 kanals of land of her share in the total land measuring 213 kanals 10 marlas comprised in Khewat No.218. Balbir Singh plaintiff-respondent No.1 also filed suit for pre-emption in respect of that 12 kanals of land comprised in Khewat No.218. The area of Killa Nos. 6/1 and 6/2 is actually 4 kanals each but in the plaint those Khasra numbers were inadvertently typed as 16/1 and 16/2. The plaintiff also omitted to mention Khatoni Nos.278, 279, 280 in the plaint but that is hardly material when it was specifically mentioned that the land sold by Kitabo sought to be pre-empted by Balbir Singh was 12 kanals of land comprised in Khewat No.218. The number of the sale deed, the date of its registration and the sale consideration mentioned therein were also incorporated in the plaint. So it can be safely gathered from a perusal of para 1 of the plaint that Balbir Singh plaintiff sought to pre-empt the sale of land made by Kitabo in favour of Jai Kishan defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 20.5.1992 and that land was comprised in Khewat No.218, the total area of which was 213 kanals 10 marlas. So the suit cannot be said to be bad for partial pre-emption when the total land sold by Kitabo through registered sale deed 20.5.1992 was sought to be pre-empted by Balbir Singh plaintiff. The observations made in the aforesaid authorities relied upon by the counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 are not helpful to defendant No.1 in this case as the facts of the aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable. In Ganga Singh v. Narinjan Singh, 1969 CLJ 177 (P&H), the property sold was agricultural land and Haveli whereas the suit for pre-emption was filed only in respect of land. A specific objection was also raised by the defendant in that suit that it was bad for partial pre- emption but still the plaintiff in that suit did not include Haveli in the plaint. So the suit was held to be bad for partial pre-emption for non-inclusion of Haveli in the plaint. In Manbodh Singh v. Brij Bhukhan and another, AIR 1931 Oudh 52, the sale was made of lands situated in two pattis. The plaintiff being a co-sharer in one patti filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of land of that patti though he had an equal right to pre-empt the sale of the land of other patti. So his suit was held to be bad for partial pre-emption. But in the case in hand, the total land sold by Smt. Kitabo was 12 kanals through registered sale deed dated 20.5.1992 and that very land was sought to be pre-empted by Balbir Singh plaintiff. It was also mentioned that the sold land was comprised in Khewat No.218. If the plaintiff omitted to mention some of the Khatoni numbers forming part of Khewat No.218, it is immaterial when the total land sold by Kitabo was sought to be pre-empted and the details of that land are clear from the perusal of para 1 of the plaint. It is also immaterial that Khasra Nos.6/1 and 6/2 of rectangle No.19 were wrongly mentioned as Khasra Nos.16/1 and 16/2 in para 1 of the plaint when the area of these khasra numbers was correctly given. Even otherwise the plaintiff was to be substituted in place of defendant No.1 and when Kitabo defendant No.2 was herself not in exclusive possession of the land of Khasra No.19/6/1,6/2, 14 and 15, how could she give exclusive possession of the land to the vendee i.e. Defendant No.1.

Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below on the following grounds:

"(i) Because the plaintiff had filed the suit in respect of Khewat No.218, Khatoni No.273 to 275, rect. and killa Nos.19 (16/1, 16/2, 14 , 15) to pre-empt the sale deed dated 20.5.1992 which was executed in respect of Killa Nos.6/1 and 6/2 by the vendor. The plaintiff had omitted to pre-empt the sale of killa Nos.19//6/1 and 6/2 but had filed the suit in respect of killa Nos.19//16/1 and 16/2 which were never sold by the vendor. In this way the pre-emptor had filed the suit for partial pre-emption and therefore, the suit was not entitled to be decreed and in fact was not even maintainable as the killa Nos. sold were not sought to be pre-empted by the plaintiff.
The appellant has also assailed the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was bad for partial pre-emption inasmuch as the land comprised in Khatoni No.278 to 280, which was also the subject matter of sale, was not included in the plaint and the land comprised in killa Nos.6/1 and 6/2 of rectangle No.19, of which the possession was allegedly given at the spot by the vendor to the vendee, was not included and in its place, the land comprised in killa Nos.16/1 and 16/2 of rectangle No.19 was included which in fact does not form part of the sale deed.