Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 15

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)  S. 15 read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42-Pre-em ption suit-Decree, alleged to be collusive-No evidence led to prove who paid the pre-emption amount-No effort made to get relevant receipts produced in Court regarding payment of pre-emption money---No direct evidence led to prove collusion---Evidence also not showing that' at time of institution of pre-emption suit by respondent 7 he was not honest in pursuing same or that some understanding between respondents 1-5 and respondent 7 had already existed or had been reached during pendency or suit Mere subsequent conduct of respondent 7, held, of no account and respondent 7, could, in circumstances, be said to have sued for pre-emption for benefit of respondents 1-5. It was argued by the counsel for the appellants that the conduct of respondent No. 7, clearly shows that the pre-emptive decree in question is collusive and has been obtained by fraud for the benefit of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 only and respondent No. 7 instituted his pre-emption suit at their instance. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the said conduct of the respondent No. 7 is sufficient to hold that the decree in question has been obtained by fraud. No direct evidence has been produced to prove issue No. 1. Even this has not been tried to be proved that the pre-emption amount was deposited by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and not by respondent No. 7 as alleged by the appellants. No effort has been made by the appellants to get the relevant receipt regarding the pay ment of the said amount produced in the Court. Respondent No. 7 however, was not obliged to produce the said receipt unless required by the Court to do so. In order to prove that the decree in question was obtained by fraud it was necessary to prove that there was collusion between respondent No. 7 and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 before the institu tion of the pre-emption suit by respondent No. 7. Nothing has been brought on record to show that at the time when the suit for pre-emption was instituted by; respondent No. 7, he was not honest to pursue the same or that some understanding already existed before the…