GH HASSAN BHAT Vs. ALI BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This is defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for pre -emption. The case of the plaintiff was that Akbar Wani defendant NO. 2 had sold the land in dispute to Ali Bhat defendant No. 1 and executed a sale deed in his favour on 13 -9 -1957 and that the plaintiff had a preferential right to purchase that land being a co -sharer in Khewat No. 47. It appears that the plaintiff had bought 4 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land comprising Khasra No. 190 in Khewat No. 47 from defendant No. 2 on 23rd Katik, 1991. The plaintiff alleged that as no partition had taken place between him and the other owners of the Khewat he was a co -sharer in the Khewat and had a preferential right to purchase the land in dispute as compared to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 resisted the suit on the ground that he had purchased the whole Khasra No. 190 comprising 4 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land from defendant No. 2 and that the plaintiff had no share in that plot of land and therefore had no right of prior purchase. The plea of the defendant found favour with the trial Court and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. On appeal the District Judge found that the plaintiff was a co -sharer in the Khewat and therefore had a preferential right to purchase the suit land. The issue whether the plaintiff had prior right of purchase or not was decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was remanded to the trial Court with the direction that the other issues be decided and the suit disposed of according to law. The defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) THE sole question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff, a co -sharer in the Khewat has preferential right to purchase the land in dispute. The word co -sharer is used in Section I4(b), fourthly of the Right of Prior Purchase Act which reads as under :

(3.) THE word co -sharer is not defined in the Right of Prior Purchase Act of the State. Even in the General Clauses Act we do not find the definition of the word co -sharer and it is not to be found in Whartons Law Lexicon, or in Strouds Judicial Dictionary or any other English dictionary. The intention of the Legislature appears to be that section I4(b), fourthly should apply only to the sale of an undivided share in joint agricultural immovable property and the word co -sharers used in the aforesaid section means persons owning a share or shares in the whole of the undivided property along with another person or other persons who hold undivided share or shares in the same property. In this view we are fortified by a ruling of the Lahore High Court, Sher Singh versus Nand Lal, reported in A. I R. 1947 Lahore 134 in which it has been held: