(1.) This is a second appeal by Ramjas and two other vendees defendant-appellants, against Shrimati Hardevi, pre-emptor-plaintiff and Hari Singh vendor. The facts leading to the appeal are as under :-
(2.) Shri Roop Chand Chaudhry appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the view taken by the two Courts below on issue Nos. 1 and 2 is not tenable inasmuch as the pre-emptor ceased to be co-sharer after the property had been partitioned and that the partition having taken place long before the date of the decree, the suit of the plaintiff should have been dismissed.
(3.) In order to appreciate the above point raised, it is necessary to set out some more relevant facts. Application was made on October 21, 1956 by Hari Singh vendor for partition of the land sought to be pre-empted amongst the co-sharers including the vendor and the pre-emptor. Its copy proved on the record is Exhibit X. 3. Certified copy of the statement by the vendor to the effect that the land be partitioned placed on the record is Exhibit X. 4. Husband of the pre-emptor also made similar statement stating that the land be partitioned. Its certified copy is Exhibit X. 5. Ramjas vendee, who was mortgagee of the land in dispute, also made a statement saying that he had no objection to the land being partitioned. Its copy is Exhibit X. 6. Order was passed on March 26, 1957 by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade directing that the Patwari should submit Naksha Alif. The revenue officer passed order on April 29, 1957 to the effect that the counsel for the applicant is present, that none on behalf of the respondents has appeared and they be proceeded against ex parte, that the khasra numbers as given in the Naksha received showed that the parties were in possession according to their respective shares and that it has been stated by the applicant and the parties (sic) that they have compromised the matter and that there was no need of the proceedings being continued. At the end, it was ordered that the proceedings be filed.