ORDER

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J. - Controversy in the present case relates to right of pre-emption of a co-sharer in terms of Section - 15 (l)(b), Clause 'Fourth' of The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as applicable to State of Haryana) for short "the Act" and the part of the text existing at the relevant point of time, reads as under:-

"15 Persons in whom right of pre-emption vest in respect of sales of Agricultural land and village immovable property-

(1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest-

(a)......................................................

(b) Where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly:-

FIRST................................................

SECONDLY........................................

THIRDLY............................................

FOURTHLY, in the other co-charers;

FIFTHLY............................................

(c) .............................................."

2. Subject matter of the Us is agricultural land measuring 35 Kanals, 2 Marias, hereinafter referred as "suit land"; which was purchased by appellants-vendees (defendants No. 1 to 5) from defendants No. 6 to 12 (Vendors), vide registered sale deed dated 14.06.1986. Respondent-sole Plaintiff (now deceased), claiming himself to be a co-sharer in the 'Khewat' comprising suit land, filed suit for pre-emption , which was decreed by both the courts below.

Unsuccessful appellants are in second appeal under section 41 of The Punjab Courts Act, 1918; for short "the Punjab Courts Act".

3. Suit was filed by respondent on the premise that:-

(i) he is a co-sharer in the khewat comprising the suit land; whereas the appellants are having no concern with the same;

(ii) no notice regarding the sale of suit land was ever issued to him by the vendors;

(iii) suit land was sold for an amount of Rs.98,000/-, but just to defeat his right, in the sale deed total consideration has been reflected as Rs.1,20,000/- wherein fictitious amount of Rs.22,000/- is included to have been paid at the time of agreement to sell.

4. Appellants No.1 to 4 filed joint written statement; whereas, separate response was filed by appellant No.5 raising the following pleas:-

(i) respondent is not a co-sharer in the Khewat comprising the suit land;

(ii) he refused to purchase the suit land due to shortage of funds and thereafter, appellants purchased the same with his consent;

(iii) sale-deed was executed by the vendors after receiving the total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- being the market price;

(iv) also submitted that in case the suit of respondent is decreed, the appellants are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 15,000/-as stamp duty, Rs.503.75 paisa being registration fee and Rs.22/- for writing charges as well as Rs. 10,000/- spent for improvement of the suit land. Respondent filed replication and reiterated the contents of plaint while controverting the objections of the appellants raised in their respective written statements.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed following issues:-

"1. Whether plaintiff being co-sharer with vendors in the khewat comprising the suit land has got superior right of pre-emption against defendant set No. 1 over the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether Rs. 1,20,000/- as sale consideration of the suit land was fixed in good faith and actually paid by defendant set No. 1 to vendors? OPP.

3. Issue No. 2 is not proved, then what was the prevailing market price of the suit land at the time of sale? OPP.

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

5. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is under valued for the purposes of court fees? OPD.

7. Whether in the event of decree of the suit defendants set No. 1 are entitled to recover Rs. 15525.75 P. as stamp expenses registration charges and writing charges from plaintiff? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by hi