ROOP RAM Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 10.9.1987 and 12.1.1988 passed by Sub Judge III Class, Kurukshetra and 12.1.1988 passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the suit and his appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that suit for preemption and the appeal have been dismissed by holding that as the appellant purchased specific khasra numbers from a specific rectangle, he did not become co-sharer in the entire khewat so as to have a right of preemption. The finding so recorded is based upon a Full Bench judgment in Lachhman Singh Vs. Pritam Chand, 1970 PLR 341 , which has been over-ruled by a larger Bench in Ram Chander Vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 685 by holding that as khewats, rectangles and khasra numbers are artificial divisions of land, assigned by revenue authorities for the purpose of identifying land holdings, the mere fact that land is purchased from a separate rectangle, would not deprive a co-sharer from maintaining a suit for preemption with respect to land situated in another rectangle and therefore, the following substantial question of law arises for adjudication:-

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and have no hesitation in holding that both the trial as well as the first appellate court have committed a serious error of law and the substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees would reveal that the appellant has been non-suited on the ground that his vendor was sole owner of khewat no.1 but as the appellant purchased specific khasra numbers from rectangle no.90, i.e., khasra no. 11/2 he does not become a cosharer in the khewat and, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to preempt sale executed by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 4. The finding is based upon the Full Bench judgment recorded in Lachhman Singh's case (supra). The judgment in Lachhman Singh's case (supra) came up for consideration before a larger Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra). After considering the nature of property held in common by co-sharers reflecting commonality of ownership and possession and the division of land into khewats, rectangles and khasra numbers, a five Judges Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra) held as follows:-