IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-2521-1993 (O&M) Reserved on:-03.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 11.12.2025 Uploaded on:-11.12.2025 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Balkar Singh and Another ....Appellants VERSUS The Mujhel Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. Tikri ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondent proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.08.2025.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.1991, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and passed a decree for possession by way of pre-emption in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and the learned Lower Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment and decree by its judgment and decree dated

11.10.1993. Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff–Cooperative Society, through its member and cashier Shri Ajit Singh, filed a suit for pre- emption in respect of agricultural land measuring 23 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Bhat Majra, Tehsil Guhla. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Lilawati, widow of Ganesh Dass, was the recorded co-sharer in Khewat No.3 of the land in question and she sold this share of land for a sum of ₹21,000/- on 15.11.1972 through a registered sale deed. The sale was described as pertaining to a share in the entire Khewat and the relevant field numbers were recorded as Rectangle No. 26, Killa Nos. 1, 2 and 10. It was further pleaded that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed was neither fixed in good faith nor actually paid, and that the real market value of the suit land at the time of sale was only ₹11,000/-. The plaintiff claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the ground that it was a co-sharer in the same Khewat from which the land had been alienated, and therefore, by virtue of its status as co-Khewatdar, it possessed a superior right of pre-emption. On these averments, the suit for possession by way of pre-emption was filed.

3. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement controverting the entire claim of the plaintiff. They denied that the plaintiff had any superior right of pre-emption and asserted that the suit was barred by limitation. The defendants further raised the plea of partial pre-emption, contending that the plaintiff could not pre-empt the sale as alleged. It was further pleaded that specific Khasra numbers had been sold by the vendor in favour of the vendees and not an undefined share in the Khewat, and that the sale consideration of ₹21,000/- was genuine, fixed in good faith, and actually paid by the vendees to the vendor. According to the defendants, the value of the suit land was correctly stated as ₹21,000/- and not ₹11,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff.

4. From the pleadings for the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court

1. Whether the plaintiff has a superior right to pre-emption? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

3. Whether the 1/5th has been deposited in time? OPD

4. Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for partial pre-emption? OPD

6. Whether the sale price was fixed in good faith or was actually paid? OPD

7. If Issue No. 6 is not proved, what was the then market value of the suit land? OPD

8. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPD

9. Relief

5. The Trial Court recorded that the present case had been received on remand from the Hon’ble High Court for being decided afresh after framing an additional issue. In compliance with the High Court’s directions, Issue No. 1(a) was framed on 13.06.1991 and both sides were afforded full opportunity to lead evidence specifically on this newly framed issue.