The court ruled that co-ownership acquired through sale does not confer superior rights in pre-emption claims, and failure to prove lack of notice under the Punjab Pre-emption Act is detrimental to the plaintiffs' case.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

1. These two appeals are inter-connected. Both arise out of suits seeking decree of possession by way of pre-emption by co-sharer. RSA No. 941 of 1991 is at the behest of the defendants, who are aggrieved of the decree of pre-emption passed against them in favour of the plaintiffs. RSA No. 2383 of 1996 is at the behest of the plaintiffs whereby suit seeking decree of pre-emption stands dismissed.

2. Both the appeals are being disposed off by common judgment based upon common set of facts arising out of suits wherein relief claimed is the same i.e. decree of pre-emption though qua different sale deeds but between same parties.

3. Plaintiffs are co-sharers and related to vender Kalanwati. The pedigree table showing their relationship with the vender Kalanwati reads as under:

4. Relationship between Sarbti wife of Devi Lal and Kalanwati-the vender is further evident from the following pedigree table:

5. Hari Singh died in the year 1940. His share also devolved upon his three sisters through his mother Sheo Kauri. The land in dispute is estate of Kalanwati co-owner to the extent of 1/3 in the total land measuring 399 kanal 15 marlas. Kalanwati agreed to sell her share admeasuring 133 kanal 05 marlas in favour of defendant No. 2-Raja Ram vide agreement to sell dated 12.06.1986. Out of the said land, she executed sale deed dated 10.07.1986 qua 80 kanal 0 marla land in favour of defendant No. 1 to 4. Parties agreed to extend date of sale qua residual land. Rest of the land i.e. remaining 53 kanal 5 marlas was further sold by Kalanwati in favour of defendant No. 2 and 4 vide sale deed dated 02.01.1987. Plaintiffs filed suit i.e. civil suit No. 330/1987 on 16.07.1987 seeking decree of possession by way of pre-emption in re: sale deed dated 10.07.1986. On 10.09.1987 i.e. during the pendency of the suit, Bhag Chand defendant No. 4 by way of decree, exchanged his land with defendant No. 3 and 5. Second suit to preempt the sale deed dated 02.01.1987 was filed on 21.12.1987.

6. The first suit filed by the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants-vendees claiming that prior to filing of the said suit, they have become co-owners in the entire suit land. The plaintiffs were required to have superior right to preempt the sale deed on the date of sale, date of filing of the suit and the date of decree of suit. Plaintiffs having lost their superior right are at par with vendees.

7. Suit filed by the plaintiffs was put to trial framing following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs have right of pre-emption que the ale in question as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether sale consideration of Rs 1,80,000/- was fixed in good faith and actually paid to the vendor as alleged in the plaint? OPD.

3. If issue No. 2 is not proved that was the market value of the suit land at that time? OPP.

4. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD.

5. Whether defendants/vendors are entitled the stamp and registration expenses, if so what to amount? OPD.

6. Whether defendants have made improvement in the suit land and if so that to amount? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

8. Whether the suit of plaintiffs not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

9. Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.

10. Relief.”

8. Trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs do not have any right superior to that of the defendants and are thus, not entitled to preempt the sale deed. Issue No. 2 and 3 were decided as not pressed in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 6 and 9 were decided against defendants. Issue No. 7 and 8 were decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs. In view of the findings returned on issue No. 1, suit filed by the plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed.

9. Plaintiffs filed appea