A vendee who purchases land from a joint khewat becomes a co-owner/co-sharer in the entire joint khewat, irrespective of the specific khasra/killa numbers or rectangles referenced in the sale deed.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. We are called upon, to resolve an apparent difference of opinion between the ratio of two Full Bench Judgments, namely, Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand (1970)72 P.L.R. 341 and Bhartu v. Ram Sarup 1981 P.L.J. 204, the former holding that purchase of land from a joint khewat by reference to specific kila/khasra numbers contained in specific rectangles would not confer the status of a co-sharer in the entire joint khewat upon the vendee and the latter holding to the contrary.

2. Before we proceed to answer the reference, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts of the present case so as to place the entire controversy in its correct perspective.

Smt. Kitabo and Smt. Jagwanti were joint owners of agricultural land measuring 26 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing Khewat No. 78, Khatoni No. 127, Rectangle Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 1471. They sold land measuring 14 kanals 4 marlas to Bhim Singh, the plaintiff/respondent, from Khewat No. 78, Khatoni No. 127, Rectangle No. 30/6/2/2(3-6), 15/2/2(1-7), Rectangle No. 31/12/l(l-6), 19/2(2-4), Khatoni No. 129 and from Killa No. 31/12/2(6-1), pursuant to a registered sale deed, dated 30.12.1988. They thereafter sold land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas to Ram Chander, the appellant-defendant, vide registered sale deed, dated 27.3.1989 from Khewat No. 78, Khatoni No. 127 Rectangle No. 32.

3. The plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit for possession by way of pre-emption praying that as he had become a co-sharer, in the entire land held jointly with his vendors, he had a superior right to pre-empt the sale deed, dated 27.3.1989, whereby land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas was sold to the defendant. The defendant, however, asserted that as the plaintiff had purchased land bearing specific killa numbers from Rectangle Nos. 30 and 31, he could not be deemed to be a co-sharer in Rectangle No. 32 and, therefore, had no right to pre-empt the sale deed, executed in favour of the appellant with respect to land from Rectangle No. 32.

4. The learned trial Court held that as the respondent/plaintiff had purchased land from a joint khewat, he had become a co-sharer in the entire khewat and the fact that his sale deed evidenced purchase of specific killa numbers from Rectangle Nos. 30 and 31 would not disentitle him to pre-empt the sale, made in favour of the defendant from Rectangle No. 32. The trial Court placed reliance, for its conclusions, upon the Full Bench judgment in Bhartu v. Ram Sarups case (supra).

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant-defendant filed an appeal.

5. The appellate-Court dismissed the appeal, by placing reliance upon the Full Bench Judgment in Bhartu v. Ram Sarups case (supra) and held that the respondent/plaintiff had, admittedly, purchased land out of the joint khewat, he could successfully assert a right of pre-emption being co-sharer in the entire joint khewat.

6. During the hearing of the Regular Second Appeal, counsel for the appellant, placed reliance upon the judgment in Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand (supra), to assert that the respondents were not co-sharers in the entire joint Khewat Counsel for the Respondents, however, placed reliance upon the judgment in Bhartu v. Ram Sarups case (supra) and asserted that as the respondents had become co-sharers in the entire joint khewat, they were entitled to pre-empt the subsequent sale. Faced with this apparent conflict between two Full Bench judgments, the present reference came to be made and reads as follows:

Admitted. This appeal will have to be heard by a Full Bench in view of the conflict between the ratio of law as expressed by two full Benches i.e. in Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand (1970)72 P.L.R. 341 and Bhartu v. Ram Sarup 1981 P.L.J. 204. Another case on the same point, R.S.A. No. 1910 of 1993 has already been admitted to Full Bench. The exact order passed by V.K. Jhanji, J. on 16.11.1993 to this effect is reproduced below: The matter involved in this appeal was also inv