The right of pre-emption is a statutory right available to co-sharers in the land to purchase the land in preference to a non-co-sharer when the land is sold by another co-sharer.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. Appellants sought possession by way of pre-emption of land measuring 19 Kanals 1 marla being 1/5th share of total land measuring 95 kanals 4 marks on the basis that they were co-sharers in the land in dispute which was sold by Ajmer Singh to respondent-vendees for a consideration of Rs. 1,33,350/- vide sale-deed dated June 11, 1990. The matter was contested by the vendees on various pleas inclusive of that they were tenants over the land in dispute for the last more than two years prior to the sale and had, thus, preferential right to purchase the same. Whereas all the pleas raised by them were negated by the trial Court, the first Appellate Court in an appeal preferred by them i.e. vendees reversed the findings of the trial Court on the only issue with regard to their being tenants whereas all other findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld. Inasmuch, respondents were held to be tenants over the land in dispute, sale in their favour was protected resulting into dismissal of the suit. Obviously, plaintiff-appellants are in appeal asking for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and restoring the one passed by the trial Court.

2. It is admitted position that in the revene records inclusive of latest jamabandi for the year 1988-89 that was available immediately prior to the sale in question, vendee-respondents found no mention as tenants under the Vendor or any one else. They still pleaded that they were tenants and sought to prove the said plea on the strength of oral evidence by examining DW2 Harnam Singh, DW3 Ajmer Singh vendor and DW5 Karnail Singh. They also produced on records pedigree table, Ex.D1, decree dated February 29,1992, Ex. D3 and Khasra Girdawaris, Ex. D4 and D5, that came into existence on the strength of decree, Ex. D3. They also relied upon recitals in the sale-deed wherein they were mentioned to be tenants over the suit land. The trial Court thread-bare discussed oral as well as documentary evidence, referred to above and came to a definite conclusion on cogent grounds that the plea of defendants thay they were tenants was totally hollow and the evidence was created after filing of the suit by the plaintiffs with a view to defeat their claim. Appellate Court, as referred to above, reversed the findings of the trial Court on the crucial issue and dismissed the suit.

3. This Court, after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that whereas, the trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and came to a correct conclusion, the first Appellate Court dealt with the matter by misinterpreting, misreading and mis-quoting both, oral and documentary evidence as also by drawing absolutely wrong conclusions. Coming first to the oral evidence it will be seen that DW2 Harnam Singh in his examination stated that he was owner of land adjoining the land in dispute and that he was instrumental in getting the sale effected in favour of defendant-vendees. He also stated that he had seen the vendees paying rent (BATAI) to the vendor. However, when cross-examined, he could not state as to in which killa number tubewell was installed nor could be stated that as to when the tubewell was actually installed. He also stated that defendant-vendees had paid advance of Rs. 80,000/- to the vendor which is factually incorrect. He also could not state as to who was the deed-writer. He also could not state as to how many days before the sale, agreement was executed. It is significant to mention that agreement of sale which was proved to be available with the vendees as admitted by them and which could certainly contain recital with regard to possession of vendees was withheld from the scrutiny of the Court. No rent receipt evidencing payment of rent was produced on the records nor DW2 ever stated that any such receipt was executed.

4. In so far as DW3 Ajmer Singh is concerned, suffice it to say that he is a remote co