L. N. MITTAL - (1.) DEFENDANTS No.1 and 2-vendees Dalbir and Rajesh having lost in both the Courts below have filed this second appeal. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Pala filed suit to preempt the sale of suit land made by proforma defendant No.3 Ram Kumar (proforma respondent No.2 herein) to defendants No.1 and 2/appellants vide sale deed dated 11.05.1989 on the ground of being cosharer in the joint land of which the suit land is part.
(2.) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit and pleaded that specific suit land and not share in joint land has been purchased and, therefore, plaintiff has no right of preemption. However, it was admitted that plaintiff is chosharer in the khewat. It was also pleaded that the sale took place with the consent of the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Tohana vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.1993 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2006. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
(3.) IT is proved from oral and documentary evidence on record that plaintiff is cosharer in the joint land of which the suit land is a part. Contention of the vendees/appellants that they purchased specific suit land and not share in the joint land, cannot be accepted because there has been no partition of the joint land of which the suit land is a part. Consequently, even sale of specific suit land by vendor-cosharer shall be deemed to be sale of share of joint land and subject to partition. This view finds support from Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhartu versus Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204. IT is thus manifest that plaintiff being cosharer in the joint land of which the suit land is part/share has superior right to preempt the impugned sale.;