JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 4285 to 4292 of 2004, as common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals. For the purpose of convenience, facts from R.S.A. No. 4285 of 2004 may be noticed.
2. This appeal has been filed by the defendants, against the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was accepted, judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.
3. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for malkana possession by way of pre-emption in respect of the suit land, claiming themselves to be tenants over the suit property. The learned trial court held that plaintiffs 1 to 8 were lessees (tenants) in respect of the suit land and they certainly had a right to claim pre-emption, whereas plaintiffs 9 to 17 had failed to prove that they were lessees and as such they did not have any superior and preferential right to claim pre-emption. However, issue No. 6 regarding limitation was decided in favour of the defendants and it was held that the suit was barred by limitation and resultantiy, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, die judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed holding that all the plaintiffs were proved to be lessees/tenant!; over the suit land and that the suit was within limitation. Resultantiy, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Aggrieved against the same, defendants filed the present appeals in this court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
5. With regard to limitation, the learned Additional District Judge had placed reliance on the law laid down by a Division Bench of this court in the case Ram Chand and Ors. v. Shrimati Rajinder Kaur and Anr., 1 1972 P.L.J. 584. I have gone through the Division Bench judgment of this court in Ram Chand’s case (supra). The law laid down in this authority squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the said authority, placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Ram Saran Lall and Ors. v. Mst, Domini Kaur and Ors., 2 A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1747, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the sale was complete only when registration of the sale deed was completed, as contemplated under section 61 of the Registration Act. In the present case, registration of sale deed was impounded on account of payment of lesser stamp duty and it was only subsequently that the sale deed was released vide order dated 17.5.2000, passed by the Collector and thus from the said date the limitation would start. Merely because PW 1 Jagbir Singh, Registration Clerk had deposed that even after the impounding of the sale deed, its copy could be issued but an endorsement about the impounding of the sale deed is always made on the copy as sale deed cannot be said to be complete, in my opinion, would be of no help to the defendants appellants since according to this witness as well the sale deed was completed only on 17.5.2000 when the sale deed was released and delivered to the party concerned. If the date 17.5.2000 is taken as relevant date, it would be clear that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was within limitation. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, learned Additional District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the suit was within limitation.
6. With regard to tenancy, both the courts found that plaintiff 1 to 8 were proved to lessees/tenants. With regard to plaintiffs 9 to 17, the trial court had held that these plaintiffs were not proved to be tenants over the suit property and did not have superior and preferential rights to seek decree for pre-emption. However, the learned Additional District Judge modified the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and it was held that all the plaintiffs were proved to be tenants over the suit property. While coming to this conclusion, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that from the oral and documentary evidence it was proved that all the plaintiffs were lessees/tenants over the suit property. It was noticed that in the plaint it was alleged that plaintiffs 9 to 13 had inherited the share of Dharam Pal, since deceased whereas plaintiffs 14 to 17 had inherited the share of Kidara, deceased and defendants had not denied these averments in any manner and the same shall be taken to have been admitted by the defendants. It was also found that PW 2 Parveen Kumar, plaintiff was not cross examined on this point and it was not suggested to him that these plaintiffs had not inherited the suit property from their predecessor in interest. It was found that on these facts the trial court had erred in law in holding that plaintiffs 9 to 17 were not proved to be lessees/tenants as successors of Dharam Pal and Kidara. It was found that in fact, from the discussion referred to above, plaintiffs 9 to 17 were proved to be lessees/tenants over the suit land being the successors in interest of Dharam Pal and Kidara.
7. It was further found by the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiffs were tenants over the suit land since in the original lease deed for 99 years, there was mention that the lessees could transfer the lease hold rights. The plaintiffs being the transferees/legal heirs of transferees, would certainly be lessees/tenants over the suit land and as such had superior right to pre-empt the sale. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly justified in coming to this conclusion. Nothing has been shown before me either on facts or on law that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard require to be interfered with by this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal.
No other point has been urged before me in this appeal.
For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit, all the eight appeals are hereby dismissed.