On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Chopra, appearing on behalf of respondent-defendants, has submitted that as per Section 6(1) of the Rajasathan Preemption Act, 1966 (for short, ‘Act’) in respect of any immovable property’s transfer shall accrue only to a co-sharer in the property and not in the case of boundary wall of the property between two neighbors. It is further argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the suit is barred by limitation as Section 21 of the Act provides that the period of limitation for a suit of preemption is one year from the date the purchaser has taken possession of the property. Learned counsel would contend that in the instant case, plaintiff’s brother Bal Kishan transferred the disputed property to Mohan Singh in 1956 and Mohan Singh by a registered sale-deed sold the said property to defendant No.2 Tara Devi. Learned counsel contends that subsequently, Tara Devi transferred the said property in favour of defendant No.1 Nisha Chitlangiya on 14.11.1994 is sufficient to non-suit the appellant. Learned counsel has argued that the instant appeal is bereft of any question of law much less substantial question of law. Alternatively, learned counsel, Mr Chopra, submits that in view of chronological events suit brought in by the plaintiff is frivolous and vexatious, which has been rightly rejected by both the Courts below with concurrent findings.
