The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, a co-sharer is entitled to pre-empt the entire sale, and the right of pre-emption under Section 15(2) has been struck down, making Section 15(1) applicable to all sales.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This is defendants Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 14.3.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for pre-emption of the sale deed in question has been decreed.

2. The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in question which was sold by Smt. Gokli Bai and Ved Parkash (vendors) to the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 14.2.1979. Vide the said sale deed, 15 marlas of land out of killa No. 25//18/l measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas was sold by the aforesaid vendors for a consideration of Rs. 1.000/-. The aforesaid suit for preemption was filed on the plea that the plaintiff-respondent was co-sharer in the land in question and, thus, was having a superior right to pre-empt the impugned sale as he had already purchased 1 kanal 15 marlas of land from the same vendors and from the same khasra number vide registered sale deed dated 11.7.1977 (Ex.P1).

3. The defendant-appellants (vendees) contested the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent was not the co-sharer in the land in question and thus he was having no superior right of pre-emption. In this regard, it was submitted that vide sale deed Ex.P1, plaintiff purchased specific portion of the land comprising in western part of killa No. 25//18/l measuring 1 kanals 15 marlas. By the said purchase, he did not become co-sharer in the land comprising in killa No. 25//18/l. Secondly, prior to the sale deed Ex.Pl by the plaintiff-respondent, one of the appellant, namely, Isa alias Hesa had also purchased 5 marlas of land from the said khasra number vide sale deed dated 16.7.1976 (Ex.D2) and by that purchase, the appellants had also become co-sharers in the suit land,therefore, their status became equivalent to that of the plaintiff.

4. The trial court accepted the aforesaid two contention of the appellants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. On appeal, the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside by the first Appellate Court and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.On the first point, it was held that though the plaintiff had purchased specific portion of killa No. 25//18/1 by sale deed Ex.Pl but merely because he had purchased a specific portion of the khasra number, it cannot be said that he had not become co-sharer in the said Khasra number. The first Appellate Court came to the said conclusion on the basis of the law laid by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 P.L.J. 204 wherein it was held that the sale of a specific portion of the land out of the joint land will deem to be sale of the share of the joint land irrespective of the fact whether the land sold is fractional share or specified portion comprised of particular khasra numbers. On the second point, it was held that though one of the appellant-vendees, namely, Isa alias Hesa had purchased a part of the Khasra number in question vide sale deed dated 16.7.1976 (Ex.D2) yet it did not enable the said vendee to defeat the superior right of the plaintiff-respondent because he had purchased the land in question by associating with himself one Makhmul (one of the appellant), who was not a co-sharer in the said land. While relying upon another Full Bench decision of this Court in Garib Singh v. Harnam Singh and Ors., 1971 Revenue Law Reporter 706, it was held that by associating Makhmul in the impugned sale, who was not a co-sharer in the land in suit, the appellant Isa alia Hesa had sunk to the level of Makhmul, a stranger to the land in suit, in such situation, the vendee forfeits his right to resist per-emptors suit.

5. Sh. Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, could not point any illegality in the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the first Appellate Court. However, he argued that the impugned