The court clarified the burden of proof in pre-emption claims, determining rights based on co-ownership status and necessary parties in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellant-Rattan Singh, has challenged the concurring judgments of both the Courts below in the Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter to be referred as 'RSA'), primarily on the ground that the appellant-defendant was a co-owner in the Khewat even prior to the purchase of the suit land. It is contended that, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff had no right of pre-emption in respect of the sale. The appellant further submits that both the Courts below erred in observing that he had failed to place on record evidence to show that Khewat No. 11, which was previously jointly held by the parties, had not been partitioned, and that the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 were incorrectly recorded by showing the land purchased by the appellant-defendant in Khewat No. 14/11.

2. For the sake of clarity, the facts of the present case are that the respondent-plaintiff/Mange Ram, instituted a suit for possession of the suit land invoking his right of pre-emption, on the allegation that Defendant No. 2, Rachni, had purportedly sold the suit property to the appellant-defendant for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 44,000/-, whereas the actual consideration was only Rs. 24,000/-. It is asserted that the plaintiff, by virtue of his superior right of pre-emption, is entitled to acquire the suit land. Defendant No.1 contested the suit, whereas Defendant No. 2 was dispensed with as an unnecessary party by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

3. The appellant-defendant contested the suit primarily on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the Khewat well prior to the date of the sale in favour of the answering defendants. It was further contended that the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 did not correctly reflect the record, in contravention of the provisions of the Land Records Manual and the Land Revenue Act, and that the entries therein were consequently illegal and unsustainable in law.

4. Upon a careful examination of the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed the following issues for determination to effectively adjudicate the rival contentions raised by the parties:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession by way of pre-emption of the land as detailed in para no.1 of the plaint, alongwith all rights appurtenant thereto i.e. rights of rasta, khal and share in the tube-well etc. as detailed in the copy of sale deed, on payment of Rs. 24000/- against the defendants with costs of the suit on the basis of co- sharer-ship? OPP.

2. Whether the sale took place for Rs. 24,000/- if not, so, then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of its sale? OPP

3. Whether no notice as required was served upon the plaintiff? If so, to what effect? OPP

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

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not deposited the Zare-panjum in time? If so, to what effect? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption OPD,

9. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant No. 1? OPD.

10. Whether the defendant No.1 is entitled to improvement charges from the plaintiff, in case of decree? If so, to what amount? OPD.

11. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

12. Relief.

5. Both parties were afforded ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defenses. Upon the conclusion of the evidence and after hearing le