IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Judgment reserved on :04.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on 17.12.2025

ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SHER SINGH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate and

Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Advocate

for the appellants.

Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants, who are aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees dated 18.12.1989 and 05.04.1990 passed by the Court of the Sub Judge I^st Class, Kurukshetra and the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, respectively, whereby the suit for possession by way of pre-emption filed by the plaintiffs- respondents was decreed, and the first appeal preferred by the defendants-

appellants was dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption, claiming to be co-sharers in the suit land. It was contended that defendant No. 4, Baljit sold the suit land in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 namely Ishwar Singh, Suresh Kumar, and Ramesh Kumar for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- secretly, without giving any notice to the plaintiffs, who had a superior right to purchase the property as co-sharers. It was further alleged that

the actual consideration for the sale was Rs. 25,000/-, but it was erroneously and fraudulently recorded as Rs. 35,000/- in the sale deed. On this basis, the plaintiffs sought to exercise their right of pre-emption over the suit property as co-sharers. 3. The suit was resisted only by the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 3, while Defendant No. 4 chose not to appear or contest the suit. Several preliminary objections were raised by the defendants/appellants. On merits, the defendants- appellants contended that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. They claimed that the plaintiffs-respondents were aware of the transaction and were given notice of the sale, but having failed to purchase the property themselves, the defendants-appellants proceeded with the purchase. They also claimed to have incurred expenses on stamp duty, registration charges, and Rs. 5,000/- for levelling the suit property. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“(1) Whether the plaintiffs have superior right to pre-empt the sale as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-was bonafidly fixed and actually paid by the vendees to the vendor? OPD (3) If issue No. 2 is not proved then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of impugned sale? OP Parties.

(4) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (5) Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form ?

OPD (6) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD (7) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs ?

OPD (8) Whether the vendee-defendants are entitled to the amount of Rs.5334/- having been spent on stamps and registration charges? OPD (9) Whether the vendee-defendants incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.5,000/- on the improvement of suit land after the purchase? OPD (10) Relief.”

5. The learned Court of first instance, after considering the respective contentions of the parties, decided Issues Nos. 1 to 9 in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, and accordingly decreed the suit. The decree directed the plaintiffs-respondents to pay a total sum of Rs. 39,834/-, comprising of Rs. 35,000/- as sale consideration, Rs. 4,375/- and Rs. 459/- as stamp and registration charges, to be deposited within one month.

6. The first appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a two-fold argument. First, it is contended that the suit land had already been partitioned prior