The main legal point established in the judgment is the prospective application of the amended Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and the interpretation of co-sharer rights in exercising the preferential right of pre-emption.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. The appellant, by way of the present Regular Second Appeal, impugns the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 3.3.1984, vide which Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1983 filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 was allowed and Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1983 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. One, Shingara Singh was the owner of land measuring 27 kanals 12 marlas. Upon his demise, the land was inherited by his sons Balwant Singh and Joginder Singh, Balwant Singh sold khasra No. 25, Rect. No. 52 and Khasra No,5, Rect. No. 62, to Kulbir Singh and Kuldeep Singh, respondent No. 1 & 2 vide registered sale deed dated 23.6.1979. Thereafter, vide registered sale deed dated 25.11.1980, Joginder Singh sold Khasra Nos. 4/2 and 7/1, measuring 11 kanals 12 marlas, from Rect. No. 62 to the appellant and respondents No. 3 & 4. After the appellant and respondents No. 3 and 4 purchased land from Rect. No. 62, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the present suit for preemption basing their claim upon their status as co-sharers in Rect. No. 62. The appellant and respondents No. 3 & 4 sought to resist the suit on the plea that as respondent No. 1 and 2 had purchased specific khasra numbers, they did not become co-sharers in the entire khewat. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issues;-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs have a superior right to pre-emption? OPP

2. Whether the defendants had carried out any improvement upon the suit land after its purchase. If so, to what extent and to what effect? OPD

3. Whether the defendants were tenants upon the suit land at the time of its sale, if so, to whether the sale is not pre-emptable? OPD

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

5. Relief."

4. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 31.1.1983, decreed the suit for possession, by way of pre-emption, subject to the deposit of a sum of Rs. 24592.50 by 28.2.1983, minus the amount already deposited. However, under issue No. 2, the learned trial Court held that respondents No. 1 & 2 were obliged to defray the expenses of Rs. 1485/-, incurred by the appellant and respondents No. 3 & 4 in improving the land.

5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, both parties preferred appeals. The appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 163, impugning the decree for pre-emption, whereas respondents No. 1 & 2 filed Civil Appeal No. 141/83 impugning the decree regarding payment for improvements.

6. The first appellate Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment and decree dated 3.3.1984. The appeal filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 was accepted, whereas the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

7. In the present appeal, counsel for the appellant seeks to raise the following questions of law;-

1. Whether in view of the amendment of Section 15(1)(b)of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (as applicable to Haryana), the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt the sale survives?

2. Whether on account of purchase of specific khasra numbers, the respondent/ pre-emptors could be held to be the co-sharers and, therefore, entitled to pre-empt?

8. In so far as the first question is concerned, counsel for the appellant contends that by virtue of an amendment, Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (as applicable to Haryana) was substituted by a new Section 15. Pursuant thereto, the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt a sale has been taken away. The aforementioned amendment applies to all pending appeals and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be accepted and the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below set aside.

9. On the second point, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondents No. 1 & 2 purchased specific khasra numbers and, therefore did not become co-shares and they could not maintain a suit for pre-emption.

10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 on the other hand, ar