IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 07.11.2025 Jang Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Hakam Singh (since deceased) through LRS and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate with Mr. Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for the legal representatives of deceased-respondent No. 1.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The appellants-defendants have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present Regular Second Appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 rendered by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Kurukshetra, was allowed, resulting in the reversal and setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

2. The brief facts leading to the present litigation are that Jagjit Singh sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 19.12.1990 in favour of the appellants, Jang Singh and Gurvinder Singh. The respondent-plaintiff, Hakam Singh, claiming himself to be a co-sharer in the suit land, instituted a suit for pre-emption.

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement, raising various preliminary objections and denying the claim of the respondent-plaintiff regarding his status as a co-sharer.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the requisite issues for determination. Both parties were afforded adequate opportunities to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims.

5. After considering the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had ceased to be a co-sharer in the suit property as of the date of the decree. It was further held that to avail the right of pre-emption, the plaintiff was required to retain his co-sharer status until the passing of the decree. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s co-ownership came to an end upon the conclusion of partition proceedings, which culminated in the Sanad Taksim dated 21.06.1994.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the appellants-defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

7. Notice of the appeal was duly served upon the respondents. The respondent-plaintiff appeared through counsel and contested the appeal. The complete record of the Courts below was requisitioned for perusal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for both sides at considerable length and accorded my anxious consideration to their submissions, while undertaking a comprehensive and critical examination of the record of the case.

9. The sole and substantial question of law that falls for consideration and determination in the present appeal is as under:-

“Whether the status of co-sharer between the respondent- plaintiff and the vendor, Jagjit Singh, subsisted till the pass- ing of the decree by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Kurukshetra, on 30.09.1994?”

10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra committed an error in law by holding that the relationship of co-sharers continued to subsist till the passing of the decree, despite the fact that the order of partition had been made by the com- petent authority. It was argued that the findings of the learned First Appellate Court are unsustainable in law.

11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the learned First Appellate Court rightly concluded that the relationship of co-sharers between the parties subsisted till the decree was passed by the learned trial Court and that such relationship