The judgment establishes the importance of notice under Section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 and emphasizes the vested nature of the pre-emptor's right post-decree, unaffected by subsequent events.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. Defendants No.2 to 4 are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/pre-emptor has been decreed.

2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that defendant No.1-Randhir Singh (Vendor) was the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 19 kanals 10 marlas, being half share of the land measuring 39 kanals 0 marla, which was sold to defendants No.2 to 4/appellants (Vendees) for a consideration of Rs.1,95,487/- vide sale deed dated 8.11.2009, which was registered on 11.11.1991. Sadhu son of Kundan/Plaintiff/pre-emptor filed suit for possession by way of pre-emption on 2.1.1992 to pre-empt the sale deed dated 11.11.1991 alleging that the plaintiff/pre-emptor being co-share with defendant No.l has a superior right to pre-empt the suit land. The suit was contested only at the instance of defendants No.2 to 4 (vendees) who had alleged that the suit land has been purchased by them for a sum of Rs.1,95,487/- and have also spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- on its improvement. They also amended the written statement alleging the partition of the suit land. It was also claimed that they were tenants over the suit land of defendant No. 1 till the time of its purchase. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 02.09.1993:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff being cosharer in the suit land has preferential right to pre-empt. The sale in question as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the sale in question took place for a sum of Rs.1,75,487/- and it was the market value of the suit land? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has been estopped from filing the present suit against the defendants No.2 to 4 by his own act and conduct? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

7. Whether the suit is also bad for partial pre-emption? OPD

8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

9. Whether the defendants have spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- over the suit land in order to fertile the same, if so, its effect? OPD

10. In case the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, whether the defendants shall be entitled to stamp and registration charges, if so, how much? OPD.

11. Relief"

3. On 09.12.1993, following additional issues were also framed:-

"2-A Whether the defendants vendees are tenants on the suit land and the land is not pre-emptable? OPD

4-A Whether the suit land has already been partitioned, if so, to what effect? OPD"

4. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in respect of their case.

5. The suit was decreed by learned trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 17.12.1993. The Plaintiff/pre-emptor, who had already deposited l/5th of the amount of sale consideration on 07.02.1992 deposited the balance sale consideration on 24.01.1994.

6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appellant/vendee preferred Civil Appeal No.7/9 of 1994 on 25.01.1994 which was dismissed on 19.9.1995 by Sh. N.K.Jain, District Judge, Karnal, holding that amendment of Section 15 of the Act, by which right of co-sharer has been abolished is not retrospective.

7. Still aggrieved, the appellants came up in Regular Second Appeal No.2222 of 1995, which was allowed vide order dated 23.09.2009 and the matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Court for afresh decision on merits on the evidence already led but after affording an opportunity to the counsel for the parties to address arguments. After remand, the matter was placed before the District Judge, Karnal, where the appellants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) dated 9.11.2009, in which it was alleged that the plaintiff had lost his superior right