Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- This regular second appeal arises from judgment and decree dated 05.09.1985 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Bahadurgarh as well as from the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge (III), Rohtak.

2. The detailed facts are already recapitualated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiffs Surender Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘pre-emptor’) and Birham Dutt (hereinafter referred to as the ‘rival pre-emptor’) filed two separate civil suits for possession by way of pre-emption, inter-alia, alleging that defendant no.1 – Bishnu Dutt, who was a co-sharer in the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint, sold his share in favour of appellants-vendeesdefendants for a sum of Rs.49,500/- vide sale deed dated 10.01.1981.

3. Plaintiff – Surender Kumar sought pre-emption of the sale deed alleging that he being the real son of the vendor has got a preferential right against the vendee, who was the stranger; whereas in the second suit, Birham Dutt, rival pre-emptor sought the pre-emption of the same land with regard to the same sale deed alleging that he has a right to pre-empt the sale being a cosharer. It is pertinent to mention that in the suit filed by Birham Dutt, Surender Kumar son of Bishnu Dutt was also impleaded as defendant and he contested the right of Birham Dutt to pre-empt the sale deed alleging that he has superior right being son against the rival pre-emptor as Birham Dutt being brother of vendor Bishnu Dutt. On notice, defendants appeared. Birham Dutt has also contested the claim of the plaintiff – Surender Kumar in the other suit alleging that he was major at the time of filing suit but he had filed a suit through his mother. Amendment dated 11.08.1981 allowed by Court is not binding upon him. However he admitted that Surender Kumar is the son of vendor. Plea of limitation, collusion between Surender Kumar-plaintiff and the vendees was also raised. In replication filed by each of the plaintiffs to the written statement filed by each of the pre-emptors, denied the averments and affirmed the averments made in their respective plaints. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether plaintiff Surender Kumar has got superior right of pre-emption? OPP

2. Whether suit is time barred? OPD

3. Whether suit on behalf of the minor has been validly filed. If so, to what effect? OPP

4. What is the effect of amendment allowed by the Court dated 11.8.81 in absence of rival pre-emptor? OPD

5. Whether suit has been filed in collusion with the vendee? OPD

6. Whether Braham Dutt rival pre-emptor has a superior right of pre-emption? OP rival pre-emptor.

7. Whether sale consideration was fixed and actually paid for Rs.49,500/-? OPD (vendee)

8. If issue No.7 is not proved then what was the market value of the land at the time of sale? OP Parties

9. Whether suit filed by Surender Kumar is bad for partial preemption? OPD

10. Relief.”

4. Thereafter, learned trial Court afforded opportunities to lead evidence to the parties and recorded finding on various issues. Both the suits were decided by a common judgment and decree. The trial Court granted the following relief:-

“16. As a result of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff and the rival pre-emptors succeeds and the same are decreed for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of the suit land on payment of Rs.56,200/- (Rs.49,500/- as sale consideration and Rs.6700/- on account of stamps and registration charges) against the vendees but Surender Kumar plaintiff being the son of the vendor has got a superior right as against the rival pre-emptor, therefore, he is given first preference to pre-empt the sale in question on payment of Rs.56,200/-. He will pay or deposit the aforesaid amount upto 30.9.85 after adjust