Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 10.9.1987 and 12.1.1988 passed by Sub Judge III Class, Kurukshetra and 12.1.1988 passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the suit and his appeal.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that suit for preemption and the appeal have been dismissed by holding that as the appellant purchased specific khasra numbers from a specific rectangle, he did not become co-sharer in the entire khewat so as to have a right of preemption. The finding so recorded is based upon a Full Bench judgment in Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand, 1970 PLR 341 , which has been over-ruled by a larger Bench in Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 685 by holding that as khewats, rectangles and khasra numbers are artificial divisions of land, assigned by revenue authorities for the purpose of identifying land holdings, the mere fact that land is purchased from a separate rectangle, would not deprive a co-sharer from maintaining a suit for preemption with respect to land situated in another rectangle and therefore, the following substantial question of law arises for adjudication:- "Whether purchase of land by reference to specific rectangle and khasra numbers disentitles a co-sharer from preempting land situated in another rectangle - Counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment in Lachhman Singh's case (supra) has not been considered in its entirety while over-ruling in Ram Chander's case (supra). A khewat is a revenue division of ownership and thus, if a person purchases land from a particular rectangle, he cannot be allowed to preempt land, though by a co-sharer, from the entire khewat.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and have no hesitation in holding that both the trial as well as the first appellate court have committed a serious error of law and the substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees would reveal that the appellant has been non-suited on the ground that his vendor was sole owner of khewat no.1 but as the appellant purchased specific khasra numbers from rectangle no.90, i.e., khasra no. 11/2 he does not become a cosharer in the khewat and, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to preempt sale executed by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 4. The finding is based upon the Full Bench judgment recorded in Lachhman Singh's case (supra). The judgment in Lachhman Singh's case (supra) came up for consideration before a larger Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra). After considering the nature of property held in common by co-sharers reflecting commonality of ownership and possession and the division of land into khewats, rectangles and khasra numbers, a five Judges Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra) held as follows:- "18 It is, therefore, apparent that a co-owner has an interest in the entire property and also in every parcel of the joint land. When a co-sharer alienates his share or a part thereof in the joint holding what he brings forth for sale is what he owns i.e., a joint undivided interest in the joint property. A sale, therefore, of land from a specific khasra/killa number, forming part of a specific rectangle number, but being a part of a joint khewat, would, in view of the nature of the rights conferred upon a co-sharer, be deemed to be the sale of a share from the joint khewat and such a vendee would be deemed to be a co-owner/co-sharer in the entire joint khewat, irrespective of the artificial divisions of the joint land into different rectangles, khasra and killa numbers. 19 XX XX XX 20 XX XX XX 21 XX XX XX 22 Revenue entries reflect the rights of the parties as opposed to conferring rights and raise rebuttable presumptions as to their correctness. They reflect an existing state of affairs, namely, an existing title or a state of possession. Entries in revenue records neither confer nor deprive a person of his title, whether joint or separate. Rectangle numbers and killa numbers are revenue measures, used by revenue authorities to identify and describe fields that constitute the ownership of a land owner. A holding may be divided into different khewats, khataunis, rectangles and killas/khasras all bearing different numbers. Where parties are joint owners or cosharers, the land would comprise of a khewat or khewats, different khataunis, rectangles and/or khasra/killa numbers. Thus, where a group of land owners holds land in joint ownership and are reflected as owners in common of the khewat, commonly known as the joint khewat, they would continue to remain owners in possession of the land, though described as being situated in different khataunis, rectangles and khasra/killa numbers. Division of land into different rectangles, khasra or killa numbers does not alter the nature of property held in common or the rights of co-sharers flowing therefrom. The Full Bench in Lachhman Singh's case (supra), disregarded the nature of joint property and by placing undue reliance upon artificial divisions of land meant to identify land, erred while holding that a vendee, who purchases land from a joint khewat by reference to specific rectangles and khasra numbers, does not become a co-sharer in the entire joint khewat.";