IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-25.02.2026 Uploaded on:-26.02.2026 Bhura @ Bhuru (Deceased) Through LRs and Others … Appellants Versus Yamin and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate with Mr. Navjyot Singh, Advocate and Ms. Anari Parnami, Advocate for the appellants.

None for respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellant–defendant assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking possession by way of pre-emption came to be decreed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondents–plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of the suit land, the complete particulars whereof stand delineated in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint. It was pleaded that defendant No. 4 was a co-sharer in the suit property to the extent of one-half share in land measuring 60 kanals and 5 marlas. The plaintiff asserted that he was a tenant as Gair Marusi prior to the impugned sale and continued to remain in cultivating possession as such on the date of sale in respect of agricultural land measuring 26 kanals and 18 marlas, as fully described in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint.

2.1. It was alleged that defendant No. 5, acting as General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No. 4, without notice to or knowledge of the plaintiff, executed a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1990 in favour of ₹

defendants No. 1 to 3 for a sale consideration of 1,00,000/- in respect of the land detailed in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. It was further averred that Smt. Tulsi Bai was a co-owner to the extent of one-half share, which corresponded to 13 kanals and 9 marlas. On the strength of his status as a tenant, the plaintiff claimed a preferential and superior right to pre-empt the sale in question. Despite repeated requests, the defendants allegedly failed to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit.

3. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, and the alleged non-compliance with the statutory requirement of deposit of one-fifth of the pre-emption amount. On merits, the defendants denied that the plaintiff was a tenant or in possession of the suit property and categorically refuted his entitlement to claim any right of pre-emption.

4. In due course, the plaintiff filed a replication traversing the pleas and preliminary objections advanced in the written statement, specifically denying the allegations contained therein and, in turn, reaffirming and reiterating the material averments and claims set forth in the plaint. Upon completion of the pleadings, the learned trial Court, with a view to crystallizing the real points of controversy between the parties and to facilitate a structured and legally coherent adjudication of the lis, deemed it appropriate to frame the following issues for determination:–

1- Whether the plaintiff has got superior right pre-emption as tenant in respect of the suit land?OPP

2- Whether the plaintiff is tenant over land the suit land?OPD

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

OPD

4- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

5- Whether 1/5th pre-emption money has not been deposited legally and properly?OPD

6- Whether the plaintiff has no right to file this suit? OPD.

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

8- Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

9- Relief.

5. Upon the settlement of issues, both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to lead their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in s