Ram Singh vs Partap alias Pat Ram and ors.

M.S. Liberhan, J. (Oral)

Briefly stated, the plaintiffs Partap and others claimed possession of the suit land through suit for preemption with respect to the sale dated 31.5.1978 effected by the vendors in favour of the vendees. Sale of 49 Kanals of land for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/ was alleged to have been effected. The plaintiffs claimed preferential rights of preemption being cosharers.

The defendants controverted the allegations and the following issues were framed

(1) Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of preemption over the defendants? If so, its effect ? O.P.P.

(2) Whether the expenses on account of stamps and registration were incurred by the defendantvendees ? If so, to what amount ? O.P.D.

(3) Relief

The trial Court found that the sale was with respect to specific Khasra numbers and not of shares though the plaintiffs were found to be cosharers; thus, the suit for preemption was held not maintainable.

The plaintiffs challenged the decree in appeal. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and found that the plaintiffs had a superior right of preemption inasmuch as the vendors had sold undivided share in specific Khasra numbers in which the plaintiffs were also cosharers; thus, decided the plaintiff''s suit.

The defendants challenged the said judgment and decree in this regular second appeal. The only contention raised is that since specific Khasra numbers have been sold, therefore the plaintiffs do not acquire any superior right of preemption and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Counsel for the respondents controverts the said submission and contends that the sale deed Exhibit P2 categorically shows that the vendors have sold onefourth share out of undivided 196 Kanals 19 Marlas of lard. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs are cosharers in the land in dispute. He further contends that even if it assumed that specific Khasra numbers have been sold, even then, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, the plaintiffs have a superior right of preemption.

Counsel for the appellants has not been able to successfully controvert the submission made by the counsel for the respondents. He has failed to point out any substantial error in the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court to effect that the vendors have sold their undivided onefourth share vide sale deed Exhibit P2. Even otherwise also, the contention of the counsel for the appellants has no force in view of the Full Bench judgment in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup (supra), with the ratio of which I concur. The facts of the present case are fully covered by the Full Bench decision. No distinction has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants.

In view of my above observations I find no force in the appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.