IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.03.2025 Gurdeep Singh and others ..... Appellants versus Janga Ram and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Kasan, Advocate for respondents No.1, 4 to 9.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Defendants are in appeal.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of pre-emption pleading their superior right to pre-emt the sale deed dated 03.07.1986 qua the suit land as detailed out in the plaint claiming themselves to be co-shares.

3. As per the plaintiffs, plaintiffs are co-sharers alongwith defendant No.3 Jasmer Kaur. Jasmer Kaur sold 27 kanal 6 marlas of land in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 03.07.1986. Plaintiffs have superior right to pre-emt the sale deed being co-sharers in the suit land prior to sale, at the time of sale and at the time of filing of suit. Thus, plaintiffs have a right to pre-empt the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and 2.

4. Suit was contested by defendant No.1 and 2 questioning the locus of the plaintiffs to maintain the present suit. It was further claimed that defendant No.1 and 2 are tenants over the suit land. By way of present suit, plaintiffs seek to pre-empt part of the suit land. 1/5th of the pre-emption money has not been deposited. Suit is bad for partial pre-emption. Defendants further claimed that the plaintiffs were present at the time of sale. They had full knowledge regarding execution of the sale deed. Thus, they are not entitled to maintain the present suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings with the parties, Court of the first instance framed following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute alongwith all rights appurtenant the thereto with possession of specific khasra numbers as detailed in the prayer para of the plaint from the defendant on payment of the actual sale price being co-shares in the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the actual sale price was paid and good faith between the vendor and the vendee? If not so, what was the market value of the suit property? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

6. Whether 1/5th pre-emption amount has not been deposited by the plaintiffs well in time? OPD.

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

8. Whether the defendants Nos. 1 & 2 are entitled for improvement charges and the other expenses of current bills as detailed in additional plea no.2 of the written statement? If so to what amount? OPD.

9. Relief.”

6. While answering issue No.1, Trial Court held that the plaintiffs successfully proved that they have superior right to pre-empt the sale deed in question being co-sharers and thus, plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of 546/1779 share as detailed out in the sale deed under pre-emption Ex.P-4. The Court of the first instance decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

7. Dissatisfied defendants preferred appeal. Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and held plaintiffs entitled to pre-empt the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 and 2.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the findings recorded by the Courts below has drawn attention of this Court to the pleadings. He refers to para No.3 of the plaint which reads as under:-

“3. That no notice of the intended sale was ever issued to the plaintiffs-pre-emptors which is illegally essential and as such the factum of sale was kept secret from the plaintiffs-

pre-emptors.”

9. Further reference has been made to para 3 of the written statement which reads as under:-

“3. That para no.3 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintiffs were present at the time of sale and they had full k