Co-ownership rights are not automatically established through previous purchases, and the right to sue can survive with the legal representatives.

A.S.Nehra, J.

1. The appellants have filed this review application, stating that the plaintiff-respondents have no right to pre-empt the sale, because the applicants are co-sharers in the suit land as they also purchased the land measuring 12 Kanals 9 Marias out of the same joint khewat, vide sale-deed dated 20-8-1985 and, therefore, they had become co-sharers in the khewat. There is no dispute about the said purchases but that purchase was of specific khasra numbers. Though the land purchased by the appellants earlier was part of Rectangle No. 48, out of which the sale, in dispute, had been effected, yet, on account of the sale of specific khasra numbers, they had not become co sharers either in the Rectangle or in the khewat. Therefore, there is no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and the same is rejected in view of Shrimati Geeta Devi v. Banwari Lal, (1970) 72 P L.R. 446.

2. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a contradiction between the judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts. He has submitted that it has been held by the trial Court that the land was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- but, while passing the decree, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for Rs. 20,000/-.

3. Under issues Nos. 2 and 3, it was held by the trial Court that the defendants-appellants have specifically stated that the land, in dispute, was purchased for Rs. 25,000/-; and that, therefore, the market value of the land is held to be Rs. 25,000/- at the time of sale.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the decree passed by the trial Court on 4-3-1989, which reads as under :-

-

"It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and the same is hereby decreed subject to payment of purchase money together with Rs. 2,125/- as stamp charges and the registration charges, as per Rules, upto 4-4-1989."

Therefore, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a contradiction in the judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts.

5 It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that, after the death of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, the right to sue does not survive to his legal representatives. There is no force in this contention in view of the judgments in Kanta Rani v. Rama Rani, (1988-2) 94 P.L.R. 107 (S.C.), Hazari v. Neki (dead) by his legal representatives, (1968) 70 P.L.R. 323 (S.C.) and Gurdev Kaur v. Smt. Chanan Kaur,(1971) 73 P. L. R. 800 (D. B.).

6. In view of the above-mentioned discussion there is no force in this review application and the same is dismissed with , no order as to costs.