JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This judgment shall dispose of the afore-titled two appeals involving common questions of law and facts. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being extracted from RSA-1209-2025.

2. This is plaintiffs’ appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ellenabad, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for symbolic possession by way of pre-emption was dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for symbolic possession by way of pre-emption in respect of land measuring 6 Kanals being 1/4^th share of the land measuring 24 Kanals (fully described in the plaint) situated within the revenue estate of Village Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa (`hereinafter referred to as `the suit land’), which was sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, vide sale deed dated13.10.2011.

5. It was claimed that the plaintiffs were in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit land as per their share as tenants on payment of 1/3^rd share of Batai under defendant No.1 as per the Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008, including the land belonging to the brothers of defendant No.1. It was further averred that defendant No.1 sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 13.10.2011 to defendant No.2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, but in the sale deed the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. It was also claimed that the earlier owners of the suit land had filed applications on Form-L against each of the plaintiffs for obtaining Batai from time to time while admitting them as Gair Marusi Tenants on the suit land on payment of 1/3^rd share of Batai. It was the case of the plaintiffs that in order to save themselves from eviction, they used to deposit the amount of Batai as per the orders of SDO (Civil), Ellenabad. Defendant No.1 and his brothers had also admitted the status of the plaintiffs as Gair Marusi Tenants of the suit land. No notice under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short `the 1913 Act’) was issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs before the sale and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not bound by the said sale and rather, were entitled to pre-empt the sale being tenants having a preferential right of pre-emption. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 when one Gian Nath (brother of defendant No.1), put in appearance as DW-4 in another pre-emption case titled as “Joga Singh etc. Vs. Aman Kumar and others” in 2015 regarding the remaining portion of the land measuring 24 Kanal. After coming to know about the said fact, the plaintiffs obtained certified copies of the sale deed and Jamabandis. They had requested the defendants to admit their claim, but the defendants refused to do so. Under the circumstances, the suit was filed.

6. Defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.10.2016.

7. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, the suit being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiffs having concealed true and material facts. On merits, it was asserted that defendant No.2 was a bona-fide purchaser of the suit land. It was further asserted that the suit land was situated within the Municipal Limits of Rania, District Sirsa and as such it was covered by the definition of urban immovable property of Town Rania. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the 1913 Act as they themselves had not complied with the same. It was further the case of defendant No.2 that after execution of the sale deed dated 13.10.2011 in her