SOHAN SINGH Vs. SURAJ PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff-pre-emptors second appeal whose suit has been dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) Darshan Singh vendor sold the suit land measuring 174 Kanals 12 Marlas of land, vide sale deed Ex.D3 dated 16.2.67 for an ostensible sum of Rs. 30,500/-. The plaintiffs filed suit to pre-empt this sale on the ground of being co-sharers. In the written statement, the defendants denied that the plaintiff was a co-sharer or had the right to pre-empt the sale. He also claimed expenses of stamp charges and registration fee etc. and also for improvements made on the suit land after the sale. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove himself as a co-sharer. However, the trial Court further found that the defendant-vendees had only paid Rs. 27,846/- to the vendor and that would be the sale price of the suit land. At the same time it was also held that Rs. 27,846/- was the market value of the land in dispute. According to the trial Court, the vendee-defendant was also entitled to Rs. 1,948/75 paise as stamp and registration charges, besides the sale price. At the same time, a sum of Rs. 6,055/95 paise was allowed by way of improvements on the suit land after the sale. However, ultimately the suit was dismissed, as the plaintiff was not held to be a cosharer. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court. According to the learned Appellate Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to pre-empt the impugned sale, because in the sale deed specific khasra numbers were sold and not the share, as such and therefore, the plaintiff could not be held to be a co-sharer. Reliance was placed on a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in Mst. Gurnam Kaur v. Ralla Ram and others, 1970 PunLJ 687.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-pre-emptor submitted that the judgment in which the plaintiff was held not to be a co-sharer was overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PunLJ 204 wherein it was held that a sale of specified portion of the land out of the joint holding by one of the co-owners is nothing, but a sale of share out of the joint holding. That being so, the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the sale being a co-sharer in the joint Khata.