R.S.A.No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2011 Ram Kumar ......Appellant Versus Jai Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff filed suit for pre empting the sale deed executed by defendant No.5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was in possession of the land in question as a tenant under the vendor and hence, had a right to pre empt the sale deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4. Defendants No.1 to 4 in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint and averred that the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant under defendant No.5. Defendant No.5 also pleaded in his written statement that plaintiff had never remained in possession as a tenant under him R.S.A.No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) 2 over the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for possession by way of pre emption, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi nor has any cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4.Whether the suit is based on malafide? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly stamped? OPD 7. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD 8. Relief. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the plaitniff was also dismissed by the District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) 3 In order to succeed in a suit for pre emption, the plaintiff was required to prove that he was tenant over the land in dispute and had a right to pre empt on the date of sale deed, on the date of filing of the suit and on the date of passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance only. The pre emptor, who claims the right to pre empt the sale on the date of the sale must prove that such right continued to subsist till the passing of the decree of the first Court. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led on record have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was cultivating the suit land as a tenant. The name of the appellant did not appear in the jamabandi nor in the khasra girdawari to the effect that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. Rather in the revenue record, the possession of the plaintiff was depicted as a co-sharer. Plaintiff had also failed to establish any document on record regarding payment of lease money or batai to defendant No.5. The Courts below had thus rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 anita