IMPORTANT POINT
Cosharers—Partition of Joint status—Suit for pre-emption on the ground of being a co-sharers.In absence of instrument of partition, it cannot be said that the joint status of the parties come to an end.
Partition proceedings — Without drawing the instrument of partition the joint status of the parties does not come to an end.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1470 and 1557 of 1983, filed by plaintiff Jagtar Singh against the judgments and decree, passed by both the courts below, whereby his two separate suits seeking pre-emption of two different sale deeds on the ground of co­sharership, have been dismissed.

2. RSA. No. 1470 of 1983 is arising from civil suit No. 420 of 1981 pertaining to land measuring 12 Bighas representing 240/819th share of the land measuring 40 Bighas 19 Biswas, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, which was owned by one Jit Singh, who sold the same for a consideration of Rs.46,500/- to the defendants vide registered sale deed dated 7.4.1980.

3. RSA No. 1557 of 1983 is arising from civil suit No. 421 of 1981 pertaining to land measuring 10 Bighas 18 Biswas representing 218/819th share of the land measuring 40 Bighas 19 Biswas, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, which was owned by Jit Singh and his wife Piar Kaur, who sold the same for a consideration of Rs. 42,500/to the defendants vide registered sale deed dated 24.4.1980.

4. Both the suits were filed by the plaintiff for pre-empting the aforesaid two sale deeds under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) on the ground that he was having superior right to pre-empt those sale deeds as co-sharer in the joint khewat. The defendants (vendees) contested both the suits and denied that the plaintiff had a superior right to pre-empt the sales. It was also pleaded that even if it was proved that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the joint khata, out of which land in dispute had been sold, even then he has no right to pre­empt the sales, as the joint khata had since been partitioned between the co-sharers by the competent revenue authority. The defendants, by placing on record the order of partition dated 31.7.1982 . (Ex.DX) passed by the competent revenue authority, pleaded that before passing the decree, the plaintiff had lost his superior right of pre-emption, as after the order of partition, he ceased to be a co-sharer in the joint khata. That being so, his suits were liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial court, while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Har Devi v. Ram Jas and others,1974 PLJ 345, have held that by passing the order of partition dated 31.7.1982 (Ex.DX) by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, the joint status of the parties in the land in dispute severed and thereafter, plaintiff no more remained co-sharer in the suit land at the time of passing of the decree i.e. on 1.12.1982. Hence, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramji Lal and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 PLJ 345, both the suits were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff filed appeals before the District Judge, which were also dismissed. While dismissing the appeals, the first appellate court observed as under.

“9. In view of the principle of law laid down by our own High Court in the above cited authority it is apparent that the joint relationship between the parties had come to an end as soon as the order dated 31.7.1982 had been passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade Pehowa. In the circumstances it is apparent that on the date of the decree of the learned trial court the plaintiff had ceased to be a co-sharer in the land in dispute. It is the settled law that a plaintiff pre-emptor must have a right of pre-emption on the date of the sale, on the date of the suit as also on the date of the decree of the trial court. Since at the time when the learned trial court had passed the decree in the present case, the plaintiff had ceased to be a co­sharer in the land in dispute so he had no right of pre-emption. Accordingly affirm the findings of the learned trial court on issue no. 1 and on the additional issue and decide-these issues­against the plaintiff and in favour of the vendee-