IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurnam Singh(since deceased) through LRs and another ...Appellants Versus Bal Kaur (since deceased) through LRs and another ...Respondents Reserved on 12.03.2026 Pronounced on: 16.03.2026 Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate and Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendants No.1 and 2, who were the vendees in the transaction in question, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The suit for possession by way of pre-emption filed by the plaintiff Bal Kaur (now represented through her legal representatives – respondent No.1 herein) was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 29.05.1992. The appeal preferred by the defendants–vendees (appellants herein through their respective LRs) was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 02.03.1995, thereby affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. Admitted Fact : The relevant facts, which are largely undisputed, may briefly be noticed.

(i) The plaintiff Bal Kaur and her brother Gurbachan Singh proforma defendant No.3 (now represented through his LRs – respondent No.2 herein) were recorded as co-sharers in the land comprised in Khewat/Khata No.181 Min/212 Min, as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 pertaining to the land situated in village Piplutha.

(ii) Defendant No.3 – Gurbachan Singh entered into an agreement dated 06.06.1985 (Ex.D1) with defendants No.1 and 2 (the present appellants) agreeing to sell his share measuring 6 kanals out of the aforesaid khewat for a sale consideration of ₹25,000/-. Pursuant to this agreement, a sale deed dated 16.12.1985 (Ex.D2) was executed in favour of the vendees in the presence of witnesses. It is specifically recited in the sale deed that at the time of its execution itself, physical possession of the suit land was delivered to defendants No.1 and 2.

(iii) However, when the sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, the vendor – defendant No.3 fled away, due to which the registration of the sale deed could not be completed on that day. (iv) The vendees – defendants No.1 and 2 were, therefore, compelled to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The said suit was decreed on 05.06.1989. Pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the sale deed originally executed on 16.12.1985 was ultimately registered on 06.11.1989.

4. Plaintiff’s Case : After the registration of the sale deed on 06.11.1989, the plaintiff Bal Kaur, who is the sister of the vendor Gurbachan Singh, instituted the present suit on 05.01.1990 claiming a right of pre-

emption on the ground that she was a co-sharer in the khewat.

5. Although in the plaint, the plaintiff also disputed the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, the said issue has not been pressed before this Court and so, it is not in dispute that the sale consideration was ₹25,000/-.

6.1 Vendees - Defendants’ Stand : The suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2 mainly on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. It was pleaded that the possession of the suit land had already been delivered to them on 16.12.1985 at the time of execution of the sale deed itself. Consequently, in view of Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the limitation period of one year for filing a suit for pre-emption had commenced from the date of delivery of possession, and therefore, the suit filed on 05.01.1990 was clearly beyond limitation.

6.2 It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was fully aware not only of the agreement dated 06.06.1985 and the execution of the sale deed