Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Regular Second Appeal Nos.2487 and 2508 of 1995 are being decided by this common judgment as the facts and the law involved therein are the same. Adjudication of these regular second appeals by common judgment is also necessary for clarity of the matter and for better comprehension. For convenience, facts have been taken from RSA No.2487 of 1995.

2. Dinesh Kumar, defendant No.2, respondent No.2 herein, (who was given up vide order dated 31.8.1992) was owner of land measuring 1 kanal 14 marla being 34/1144th shares of 1/5th share of the total land situated in village Bodla, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, detailed and described in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 as also in the plaint, hereinafter mentioned as the suit land. He had sold the said suit land to Ramesh Kumar, defendant No.1, appellant herein, vide registered sale deed dated 11.1.1991 for consideration of Rs.25,000/- along with all rights appurtenant to the land. Plaintiff Karnail Singh, respondent No.1, claiming superior right of ownership had filed a suit seeking decree by way of preemption.

3. Defendant No.1 had contested the suit tooth and nail. It was claimed that since the land was banzar kadim at the time of sale and had been re-claimed by the vendee-defendant, appellant herein, it was not preemptible. It was claimed that the plaintiff, respondent No.1, was not entitled for a decree of pre-emption. It was claimed that Rs.5,000/- had been spent by the vendee on reclaiming the land. The suit was contested. Claiming the price of the land to have been fixed in good faith and actually paid, existence of cause of action was denied. Dismissal of the suit was sought.

4. In replication, earlier assertions in the plaint were reiterated by the plaintiff.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled for adjudication by the lower court on 4.11.1992:-

1) Whether plaintiff being a co-sharer in the khewat comprising the suit land has got superior right of pre-emption, as alleged? OPP

2) Whether Rs.25,000/- the sale price of suit land was fixed in good faith and actually paid by vendee Ramesh Kumar to Dinesh Kumar vendee? OPD

3) If issue No.2 is not proved, then what was the prevailing market price of the suit land? OP Parties

4) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit?OPD

5) Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

6) Whether the 1/5th pre-emption amount has not been deposited by plaintiff? OPD

7) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

8) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD

9) Whether the suit is Benami, if so its effect? OPD

10) Whether in the event of decree of suit, defendant No.1 is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,000/- allegedly spent on effecting improvement over the suit land as well as stamp and registration charges from the plaintiff?

11) Relief.

6. Vide order dated 21.4.1994, following additional issues had also been framed by the lower court:-

11-A) Whether defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD

11-B) Whether suit is bad for partial pre-emption? OPD

11-C) Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD

7. After receiving oral as well as documentary evidence from the parties, hearing to counsel for the parties was also provided. Thereafter holding the respondent-plaintiff to be a co-sharer, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff; issues No.2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff; issue Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.1 was partly decided in favour of the defendant. Issues No.11-A, 11-B and 11-C were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Sequelly, the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of pre-emption was decreed against the defendant. On payment of sale price of Rs.25,000/- along with stamp and other charges mentioned in the decree within one month therefrom, possession of the suit land was to be delivered t