LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-137

RANDHIR SINGH Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

Decided On May 04, 2007
RANDHIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
JAGDISH CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed this Regular Second Appeal for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of pre-emption, has been decreed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that defendants No. 7 to 13 were owners of the agricultural land measuring 18 bighas 5 biswas, i.e., 1/3rd share of the land measuring 54 bighas 15 biswas situated in village Bhoosli Tehsil and District Karnal. Defendant Nos. 7 to 13 sold their above said share in the joint land to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 (appellants herein) vide registered sale deed dated 30.11.1988 for consideration and delivered possession of the land to them. The plaintiffs being co-sharers in the joint khewat filed a suit on 29.1.1989 for pre-emption for pre-empting the aforesaid sale made by their co-sharers in favour of the appellants. The trial Court decreed the said suit on 31.7.1993. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the vendees (appellants) filed First Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal. Meanwhile, Punjab Pre-emption (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1995 came into force, whereby the right of pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership was extinguished. Keeping in view the said amendment in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the appeal of the vendees-appellants was accepted and the suit of the plaintiffs for pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership was dismissed on 13.9.1995.

(3.) BEFORE the first Appellate Court, a contention was raised by the counsel for the vendees-appellants that by purchasing the land out of the joint khewat vide registered sale deed dated 29.5.2000, they have improved their status as they have become co-sharers in the khewat, therefore, they have defeated the rights of the plaintiffs for pre-empting the suit land on the ground of co- sharership. The first Appellate Court rejected the contention raised by the appellants and dismissed the appeal while observing as under :-