The central legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the right of pre-emption for co-owners under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and the interpretation of the status of co-sharers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of pre-emption, has been decreed.

2. A few related facts pleaded by the parties are that Harbhajan Kaur (defendant No. 3) and Amrit Singh (defendant No. 4) sold land measuring 10 kanals 13 marlas comprised in khewat No. 19 rect. No. 23 Killa No. 12(8-0), 13 (8-0) being 2/3 share, out of total agricultural land measuring 16 kanals as per jamabandi for the year 1986-87, alongwith all the rights appurtenant thereto, situated in the revenue estate of village Manak Majra, to the vendees/defendants No. 1 & 2 vide sale deed dated 17.5.90 for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,33,000/-. It was alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given by the vendees to the vendors and the remaining amount was otherwise incorporated in the sale deed in order to ward off the prospective pre-emptors and that no notice of the sale was given to the plaintiffs who had become co-sharers in the joint khewat by way of purchase on the basis of sale deed dated 17.5.1988. As per averments brought on record, the possession was sought by way of pre-empting the impugned sale deed dated 17.5.1990 by the vendors to the vendees on the ground of co-sharership. In the written statement, besides raising preliminary objections, on merits, it is alleged that defendants No. 3 and 4 had sold land measuring 10 kanals 13 marlas in their favour for a consideration of Rs. 1,33,000/- on the basis of which mutation was also sanctioned. It is denied that the plaintiffs are the co-sharers and have got any right of pre-emption in respect of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff being co-sharer have got a superior of preemption to pre-empt the suit land ? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD.

3. Whether 1/5th pre-emption money has not been deposited in time ? OPD

4. Relief.

5. One additional issue was framed.

1-A Whether the defendants have spent Rs. 30,000/- on the suit land by installing tubewell etc. ? OPD."

3. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial court vide its order dated 31.03.1993 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on their depositing of Rs. 1,23,526/- as sale consideration besides Rs. 16,626/- (1/5 pre-emption zarepanjam) which was already deposited by the plaintiffs. It was further directed that if the said amount is not deposited within one month from the date of judgment i.e. 31.03.1993, the suit shall stand dismissed with costs.

4. The vendees preferred their first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short `CPC) in which he had basically raised two arguments. Firstly, that the plaintiffs are not co-sharers in the land in question because vendeees-plaintiffs had purchased a specific khasra number out of joint khewat and secondly, that after the preparation of Naksha B, the status of the plaintiffs as co-sharers was over to claim superior rights of pre-emption. Both the arguments raised by the arguing counsel were rejected by the learned court below.

5. The present appeal came up for hearing on 16.03.1994 in which the following order was passed :-

"The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is a conflict between the two full judgments of this Court, reported as Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand and another, 1970 P.L.R. 341 and Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 P.L.J. 204, on the point as to whether the purchaser of a specific khasra number(s) out of joint land becomes a co-sharer in the joint land. He has brought to my notice a reference order, dated 16th November, 1993 in R.S.A. No. 1910 of 1993 where my Lord V.K. Jhanji, J. referred the matter to a still larger Bench.

I have perused Bhartus case (supra) in which the earlier Full Bench judgment in Lachhman Singhs case (supra) was considered a