IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PARAS RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs & ANR.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS ROSHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs & ORS.

....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Sarbib Aggarwal Advocate with Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate for respondent no. 1(i) & 1(ii)

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 05.02.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.04.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 22.04.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment and reason thereof.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer

1. The present Regular Second Appeal came up before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.05.1993 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court dated 31.08.1991 primarily whereby the suit of possession by way of pre-emption filed by the plaintiff-appellant was held to be bad in partial pre-emption.

T he Conspectus Of Facts

2. A suit for possession by way of pre-emption was filed by Paras Ram and Jiwa Ram, plaintiffs against the vendors (defendants no. 2 to 24) assailing the sale of land to defendant no. 1 Roshan Lal. The suit was contested only by the defendant no. 1 – Roshan Lal. It was claimed that the plaintiff had no preferential right to purchase, inasmuch as, the defendant was also co-sharers in the suit land in view of the impugned sale deed dated 20.05.1988.

3. The learned trial Court, on the basis of material available on record, held that the plaintiff did have a superior right of pre-emption to the extent of Khewat no. 175 as the defendant was not a co-sharer of Khewat no. 175 prior to the sale deed of 20.05.1988 (Ex P-1) and that the plaintiffs had a preferential right to purchase the suit property. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed in the favor of them.

4. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. The defendant raised the objection of partial pre-emption by submitting that the land had been purchased by the defendant along with the right of irrigation out of the well along with the trees but the plaintiffs did not claim these rights in their suit for possession by way of pre-emption. It was held by the learned First Appellate Court that the suit was bad for partial pre-emption. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and his suit was decreed.

5. The appellant-plaintiffs have now approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

Contentions On behalf of appellants

7. Learned counsel for the appellants–plaintiffs would contend that the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court on the issue of partial pre-emption is legally unsustainable and contrary to the statutory scheme governing agricultural land. It is urged that the plaintiffs had unequivocally sought pre-emption of the entire sale transaction and had expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the full sale consideration as reflected in the impugned sale deed dated 20.05.1988.

8. Learned counsel would further argue the concept of “land,” as incorporated under Section 3(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act read with Section 2(3) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, is inclusive in nature and statutorily encompasses all rights appurtenant thereto, including the right of water and trees standing on the land. The submission proceeds on the footing that the doctrine of partial pre-emption is attracted only in cases where the pre-emptor consciously relinquishes a severable and distinct portion of the property or transaction, which is not the case here.

9. It is thus asserted that the learned Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by recognizing the superior right of the plaintiffs, and the reversal thereof by the First Appel