JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as, the suit for possession by way of pre-emption filed by plaintiffs Jasmer Singh and Krishan Lal (respondents herein) was decreed by the learned trial Court on 15.09.1994, which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.1995.

2. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. Pleadings: As per the pleadings, two brothers, namely Hazura Singh and Sarwan Singh, were owners in equal shares of land measuring 32 kanals comprised in one Khewat situated at village Barauli, Hadbast No. 287, Tehsil and District Ambala. Hazura Singh sold his half share, i.e., 16 kanals, in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1988, thereby making the plaintiffs co-sharers in the joint Khewat. Subsequently, the other brother Sarwan Singh sold his half share, i.e., 16 kanals, to the defendants through a sale deed dated 31.05.1989 (Ex.Dl) for an ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 62,000/-.

4. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit to pre-empt the aforesaid sale dated 31.05.1989 being co-sharers and alleged that the actual sale consideration was only Rs. 57,000/-.

5. The defendants contested the claim, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit. It was pleaded that the land owned by Ha-zura Singh and Sarwan Singh had already been privately partitioned and that each brother was in separate and exclusive possession of his respective portion. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not claim to be co-sharers in the land sold. It was further pleaded that the sale consideration of Rs. 62,000/- was genuine and commensurate with the market value; that the defendants had been put in possession by their vendor at the time of sale; that the plaintiffs had in fact participated in and negotiated the transaction; and therefore, they were estopped from claiming the right of pre-emption. The defendants also claimed to have spent Rs. 5,000/- on improvements and raised an objection of non-joinder of the vendor, Sarwan Singh, as a necessary party. Dismissal of the suit was accordingly prayed for.

6. In rejoinder, the plaintiffs denied the alleged partition and reiterated their right of pre-emption as co-sharers.

7. Findings of courts below: Upon framing of issues and appraisal of the evidence led by both sides, the learned trial Court held that the alleged private partition was not proved, and that the land continued to be joint in the revenue records. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs, being co-sharers in the Khewat, had a superior right to pre-empt the sale dated 31.05.1989. The suit was accordingly decreed. The learned First Appellate Court, on reappraisal of the record, affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

8.1 Submissions on Behalf of the Appellants: Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellants contended that both Courts had failed to appreciate the evidence showing that there had been a private partition between Hazura Singh & Sarwan Singh and that each was in separate possession of his demarcated portion, and hence the plaintiffs ceased to be co-sharers in the specific portion sold to the appellants.

8.2 It is further urged that the right of pre-emption is a weak right and can be defeated by any lawful means available to the vendee. Learned counsel also pointed out that the vendor, Sarwan Singh, had not been impleaded as a party to the suit, and therefore the plaintiffs failed to establish that the vendor had given any notice of sale to them as required under Sections 19 and 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. It is urged that the evidence on record, particularly the oral depositions, established that it was in fact the plaintiffs, who had n