IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of status for the purpose of Section 21A of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 would mean, a status which is undisputable and/or not amenable to challenge and not the one in controversy or subject matter of challenge before a competent court.

ORDER

These two appeals arise from a common judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2178 of 1989 and 2178-A of 1989 passed on August 18, 1993.

2. The controversy in these appeals relates to the scope of defence of improvement made in the status in a suit seeking enforcement of the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ].

3. The appellant was the defendant-vendee in the suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent-plaintiff. On 4th September, 1984, the appellant purchased one-fourth share in the agricultural lands from one Jangli who was a co-owner along with his brothers, Jai Narain and the respondent-plaintiff [hereinafter referred to as the first sale ]. On October 15, 1984, the appellant purchased one-eighth share of Jai Narain in the said lands [hereinafter referred to as the second sale ]. While so, the respondent filed Suit No. 129 of 1986 claiming right of pre-emption in respect of the land covered by the first sale in the Court of Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Gurgaon, on September 3, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as the first, suit ]. The respondent brought another suit for pre-emption in respect of the land covered by the second sate on 15th October, 1985, being Suit No. 124 of 1986 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as the second suit ]. The defence of the appellant was that even before the first suit was filed, he had become the co-owner and had, thus, improved his status equal to that of the respondent and as such, the suit could not be decreed against him. That submission was based on Section 21-A of the Act. The respondent filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act seeking stay of the second suit. The application was dismissed by the trial court on 31st January, 1987. Against that order, he filed a revision petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was also dismissed, on 3rd October, 1988, with the observation that both the suits be tried together.

4. Having considered the respective pleas of both the parties, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suits on 10th January, 1987. On appeal by the respondent against the judgement and decree of the Trial Judge, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeals and decreed the suits on 14th August, 1989. The High Court upheld the judgements and decrees of the First Appellate Court in the second appeals by its judgements and decrees which are under challenge in these appeals.

5. Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that inasmuch as the appellant had purchased under the second sale, a share in the joint property and, thus, became a co-owner and improved his status even before filing of the first suit, the plaintiff cannot claim a superior right in respect of the land covered by the first sale.

6. Mr. P.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that Section 21-A of the Act does not apply to a case like the present one; it is intended to apply to a situation where a co-owner along with a stranger acquires a share in the joint property which defeats his defence to a suit of pre-emption due to the presence of a stranger, so in such a case if the stranger transfers his right in favour of a co-owner, that would amount to improving the status and in such a situation, Section 21-A would apply. Section 28-A of the Act, submits the learned counsel, is applicable to the facts of the instant case and the appellant cannot take advantage of the second sale. The trial court, it is contended, erroneously held that Section 21-A of the Act over-rides Section 28-A of the Act and that both these sections operate in different fields and as Section 21-A of the Act itself is not applicable, the defence has to fail. In support of his contentions, he invited our attention to a judgement of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Har