JUDGMENT :

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. 

1. This order of mine shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing Nos.55 of 1995 and 2531 of 1995 as they arise out of same cause of action. Both the appeals have been preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1. challenging the concurrent findings of fact rendered by both the learned Courts below whereby the suit of respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking possession by way of pre-emption has been decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts are being enumerated from RSA No.55 of 1995 and the parties are being described as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of the suit land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas of land i.e. 323/364 share of land measuring 18 kanals 4 marlas, comprised in Killa No.88/11(8-0), 89//14/1(2-4), 89//15(8-0), Khewat and Khata No.61/86 to 88 situated in village Sainthali, as per jambandi for the year 1984-85 by pleading therein that defendants No.2 to 9, being owners in possession over the suit land, sold the same to defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed 15.05.1989 for a consideration of Rs.28,000/-, while mentioning a fictitious consideration of Rs.60,000/- in the sale deed, without any notice of aforesaid sale to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed his superior/preferential right of pre-emption being a co- sharer and asked defendant No.1 to acknowledge his right and when he denied to do so, suit was filed.

4. The subject matter of challenge in RSA No.2531 of 1995 is the suit property admeasuring 2 kanals 1 marla i.e. 41/364 share in the total land measuring 18 kanals 4 marlas comprised in comprised in Killa No.88/11(8-0), 89//14/1(2-4), 89//15(8-0), Khewat and Khata No.61/86 to 88 situated in village Sainthali, Tehsil Narwana, as per jambandi for the year 1984-85 with respect to which possession was sought by plaintiff by way of pre-emption on the ground that defendant No.2 therein, being a co-sharer in the entire land had sold the suit property for a consideration of Rs.5000/- vide registered sale deed No.631 dated 09.06.1989 to defendant No.1 without notice.

5. Both the suits were contested by defendant No.1 by denying the status of the plaintiff as a co-sharer and further asserting that defendant No.2 had sold specific numbers (86 to 88) out of khata No.61. It was also asserted in the written statement that the suits were filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos.2 to 9. The consideration of Rs.60,000/- was actually paid to the vendor as well as the stamp and registration expenses were borne by defendant No.1 at the time of registration of sale deed. Further, it was stated that the plaintiff had purchased specific killa numbers from other co-sharer and as such, vendee cannot become co-sharer along with other co-sharers.

6. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and in appeal preferred by defendant No.1, the findings rendered by the learned trial Court stand affirmed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff had purchased the land in some other khata/khewat with specific killa numbers and thus, he could not be a co-sharer in the suit land. In the absence of any cogent evidence, much less, any sale deed to show that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the suit land, the findings rendered by both the learned Courts below are perverse. A pre-emptor must step into the shoes of the original vendee and acquired the entire property sold, not just a portion, meaning thereby, partial pre- emption is impermissible. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh Vs. Waryam Singh passed in RSA No.218 of 1992 decided on 27.02.2025 (2025 NCPHHC 27624). 8. It is further contended that respondent No.1-plaintiff has already withdrawn the amount of Rs.48,000/- deposited by him in terms of the judgment and decree p