IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

RSA-2625-1993 (O&M) Reserved on:-22.12.2025

Pronounced on:- 08.01.2026

Uploaded on:-08.01.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

Dharam Singh (since deceased) through LRs ....Appellant

VERSUS

Chajju Ram (since deceased) through LRs and Ors. ....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, assisted by

Mr. Nischal Manchanda, Mr. Devyansh and

Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocates for LRs of respondent No.1.

Service of respondents No.2 to 5 not necessary

vide order dated 04.12.2025.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Present RSA has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.1992 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of pre-emption and the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.1993 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial

Court.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that vide sale deed dated 04.06.1990, the defendants had sold land measuring 0 bighas 1(1/2) biswas being

3/10^th share of total land out of their total land measuring 0 bighas 5 biswas comprised in Khewat No.86, Khasra No.506(0-5) situated at village Kamodha. It is alleged that no notice of the sale was ever given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was a co-sharer in the khewat at the time of filing of the suit as well as at the time of registration of the sale deed and prior thereto. It is stated that the suit land has not been partitioned till date and, therefore, the plaintiff has a superior right to pre-empt the sale in question. As the vendees failed to concede the request of the plaintiff, he was compelled to institute the present suit for possession by way of pre-emption.

3. On behalf of defendant no.1, written statement was filed controverting the assertions of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has no superior right of pre-emption and that the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action and has no locus standi to file the suit. It is asserted that the property in dispute is not pre-emptable. It is also pleaded that defendant no.1 had spent ₹4,500/- on improvement of the suit property and in case the suit is decreed, he is entitled to this amount alongwith incidental expenses and consideration. The suit of the plaintiff is claimed to be bad for partial pre-emption as the plaintiff had knowledge of improvements made in the suit property prior to sale.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff has superior right to pre-empt the sale in question? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?

OPD

4. Whether the suit property is not pre-emptable? OPD

5. Whether defendant no.1 has spent an amount of ₹4,500/- on improvement of the suit property? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for partial pre-emption?

OPD

7. Relief.

Findings of the learned Trial Court

5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties, held that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the suit land at the time of sale and even prior thereto. It was further noticed that the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 506 had not been partitioned till date and, therefore, the plaintiff had a superior right to pre-empt the sale dated 04.06.1990. The Court also observed that the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly established his co-sharership. The plea of the defendant that the property was not pre-emptable and that