9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by reversing the concurrent Judgment of the trial court and the 1st Appellate court. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased on 10-5-55 the share of Khotu and Chandu Ram in Khewat 2, Khata 26 to 44 and 6 bigas and 7 biswas in Khewat No. 3 Khatas 49 to 54 comprising in all an area of 213 bigas and 14 biswas. On 16-4-57 respondents 1 to 6 purchased 926 bighas in Khewats nos. 2 and 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to respondents 1-6. At this stage, we may mention that before the decree was passed by the trial court, the appellants had sold their co-sharers' right in Khewat No. 2, Khatas Nos. 26-44 and Khewat 3 Khatas 49-54. It was their case that after the sale this deal had co-ownership rights in 6 bighas and 7 biswas and consequently they were entitled |to a decree for preemption. The trial court on o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not disputed that the plaintiffs were co-sharers in the aforesaid khatas of khewats nos. 2 and 3, what was contested was that after the transfer of practically the entire area on that date the plaintiffs ceased to be co-sharers who could pre-empt the sale relating to 926 bigas in khewats 2 and 3 because it was nowhere proved in which khata or khewat the area had been left and in what manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been advanced in the High Court based on the definition of holdings in Section 3(3) as meaning a share or portion of an estate held by one owner or jointly by two or more land owners. On this basis it was contended that the appellants being owners of the land which held the estate they must be regarded as co-sharers in the land in dispute. The High Court pointed out that by no stretch of reasoni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court or even at this stage. The sale deed is a public document and could have been easily looked into if they would have asked for it to be admitted at the appellate stage. The suppression of the document justified the drawing of an adverse Inference that if it was produced, it would have established that the appellants had no lands left after they sold them on 19-5-1969 (59?). As the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
