S.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) THE facts of this case are in a narrow compass. Smt. Kasturi sold 1/2 share of Killa No. 2/2 of Rectangle No. 10, Khewat No. 23, Khatoni No. 37 to Raj Pal, plaintiff, on May 6, 1988. Thereafter, she sold 1/2 share of Killa No. 3/1 of Rectangle No. 10 in Khewat No. 23, Khatoni No. 37 to Paras Ram defendant on July 19, 1988. Raj Pal pre-empted the sale dated July 19,1988 by filing civil suit No. 1547 of 1989 instituted on December 7, 1989. The suit was contested by Paras Ram and the parties fought the litigation on the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption in the suit land, as alleged ? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct, omission, acquiescence and latches ? OPD. (4) Whether the plaintiff is neither co-owner nor co-sharer of the suit land? OPD. (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. (6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. (7) Relief. The learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Gurgaon, vide his judgment and decree dated January 12, 1991 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant challenged the same in Civil Appeal No. 19 of February 8, 1991. The leared Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 1 with regard to the preferential right of pre-emption of the plaintiff, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide his judgment and decree dated August 16, 1991. 2. It is that judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has been appealed against by the plaintiff and which requires my examination of its sustainability.
(2.) I have seen the pleadings of the suit, the evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and the judgments of both the Courts below. The sole argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the learned first Appellate Court had wrongly held that the plaintiff became co-sharer in Killa No. 2/2 by purchasing 1/2 share of the vendor therein but had not become co-sharer in Killa No. 3/1. He had, therefore, reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 illegally. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued supporting impugned judgment.
(3.) THE learned trial Court vide Para No. 12 of its judgment found as under : "it is clear from the above discussion that plaintiff became co-sharer in the suit land on May 16, 1988 and he was co-sharer prior to sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant which was effected on July 19, 1988, and at the time of sale, and is co-sharer even today. ";