IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 26.08.2025 Pronounced on: 10.09.2025 Darshan Singh …Appellant Versus Nand Singh (deceased) through his LRs …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate and Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate For LRs of respondent.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The defendant has preferred the present regular second appeal against the judgment of reversal, whereby the suit for pre-emption filed by plaintiff Nand Singh was decreed by the First Appellate Court after being dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The record of the Trial Court has been examined with assistance from learned counsel on both sides.

3. The facts are that Surinder Pal Singh and others sold agricultural land measuring 73 kanal 7 marla situated at village Nilianwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, to defendant Darshan Singh vide sale deed dated 25.05.1988 (Ex.D1) for consideration of ₹1,51,500/-. Claiming himself to be a co-sharer in the khewat, plaintiff Nand Singh instituted the present suit for pre-emption on the ground that the vendee was a stranger to the khewat and that no notice was given to him before the sale. He further alleged that the Khasra Girdawari entries for crop 1987 and Rabi 1988 showing possession of vendee defendant were manipulated to defeat his pre-emption rights and that the actual sale price was ₹1,41,500/-, inflated in the deed to ₹1,51,500/-.

4. The defendant resisted the suit, contending that the land had already been partitioned and that the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption. He further claimed to be in possession as a tenant on 1/3rd share of batai prior to the sale and relied on Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act for exemption. It was also his plea that the suit was barred on account of partial pre- emption. Supporting the plea of tenancy, he relied upon Khasra Girdawari entries for crop 1987–Rabi 1988, asserting their correctness.

5. The Trial Court, after framing evidence and appraising evidence produced by parties, vide judgment dated 10.06.1991, dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant was indeed in possession as a tenant on 1/3rd share batai; that corrections in the revenue record had been duly made after notice to the landowners in the presence of village officials; and that Roznamcha reports Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 supported this position. Reliance was placed on the testimony of revenue officials.

6. On appeal, however, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appraisal of evidence, held that the plea of tenancy was not established. It observed that the sale deed contained no recital of tenancy; that although tenancy for 10 years was claimed, the defendant’s name appeared in the revenue record only in 1988, and that even the agreement to sell dated 31.03.1988 did not mention his possession. The entry of April 1988 in the revenue record was thus disbelieved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 22.04.1992 and the suit for pre- emption was decreed, subject to payment of ₹1,70,680/- as sale consideration to the vendee-defendant.

7. Challenging this reversal, the defendant has filed the present second appeal.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant advances the following principal contentions:

i. Pleading and proof of correction in revenue record:

o The suit for pre-emption was instituted on 18.09.1989 and the plaint was amended on 19.10.1989 to plead, for the first time, that corrections in the Khasra Girdawari took place in April 1989. The Appellate Court, however, went beyond this pleading and treated entries showing possession since April 1988 as founded on forged documents, which is incorrect.

ii. Evidence of tenancy and applicability of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act:

o Revenue officials have testified that,