JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the defendant-Kartar Singh against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1991 passed in Civil Appeal No.90-CA of 1990 titled as Kartar Singh v. Bhagwant Kaur whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.596-C of 1988 titled as Bhagwant Kaur v. Kartar Singh thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, had been affirmed and the appeal of the defendant Kartar Singh had been dismised.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per the original nomenclature as mentioned in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff Bhagwant Kaur filed the above mentioned civil suit on the averments that she was co-sharer in the land comprised in Khewat No.221 Khatuni No.363 to 367 (hereinafter mentioned as "disputed land") fully detailed out in the head note of the plaint. Smt. Nand Kaur who was another co-sharer had sold her 1/6th share in the disputed land to the defendant Kartar Singh vide a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1987. The sale consideration amount was shown to be Rs.1,27,359.37 paise though infact it was much lesser and excess amount had been added to defeat the rights of the pre-emption of the plaintiff in the disputed land. The plaintiff while alleging that she had got a superior right of pre-emption against the defendant who was stranger and was not related to the vendor, prayed for passing a decree for possession of the disputed land by way of pre-emption.

4. In response to the notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement alleging that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer in the disputed land. While admitting that Sh. Nand Kaur had sold her share in the disputed land to the defendant, it was stressed that the sale consideration amount as shown in the sale deed was correct and had been actually fixed in good faith and paid by him to the vendor. While further alleging that the sale of disputed land being made by the female was not pre-emptible under Section 15 (2-A) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the dismissal of the suit had been prayed for.

5. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by learned trial Court vide order dated 28.02.1989:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of pre-emption? OPP.

2. Whether the sale price was fixed in good faith and was actually paid? OPD

3. If issue No.2 is not proved, then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? Oparties.

4. Whether the sale in dispute is not pre-emptable in view of the provisions contained in section 15(2-A) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, as alleged in the written statement, if so, to what effect? OPD.

5. Whether the defendant made improvements on the suit land after the sale, if so, to what amount? OPD

6. Whether the defendant is entitled to stamp registration and scribe charges, if so, to what amunt? OPD.

7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.

9. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

6. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective assertions. The plaintiff Bhagwant Kaur examined herself as PW-1 and deposed in support of her claim. In documentary evidence, she produced Ex.P-1 copy of mutation No.2747 and Ex.P-2 copy of sale deed dated 16.12.1987 and thereafter closed the same.

7. On the other hand, the defendant appeared as DW-1 and deposed in support of his claim. In documentary evidence, he produced Ex.D1 copy of the sale deed dated 16.12.1987.

8. On appraising the evidence produced on record and after considering the contentions raised by learned counsel fo