IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 141 Raj Mal Bir Singh & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. concurrent judgments and decrees of the filed by the respondent decreed. 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as “defendant No.1” and respondents No.1 and 2 as “plaintiffs”. 3. Man Singh filed a suit for possession by way of pre kanals land comprised in killa No. 12(8 No. 86 Khatoni No. 163, situated at village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani. It has been averred that ve IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The defendant No.1 is in second appeal concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. filed by the respondents for possession by way of The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as “defendant No.1” respondents No.1 and 2 as “plaintiffs”. Brief facts of the case are h filed a suit for possession by way of pre kanals land comprised in killa No. 12(8-0) and 13(8 No. 86 Khatoni No. 163, situated at village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani. It has been averred that vendor Raje Ram defendant No. 2 was co IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1339-1993(O&M) Date of decision: 22.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Pankaj Mehta, Advocate is in second appeal against the ld. Courts below whereby the suit possession by way of pre-emption, has been The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as “defendant No.1” Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Bir Singh and h filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of 16 0) and 13(8-0) Rect No. 180, Khewat No. 86 Khatoni No. 163, situated at village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, District ndor Raje Ram defendant No. 2 was co- 23 against the Courts below whereby the suit emption, has been The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as “defendant No.1” Bir Singh and emption in respect of 16 0) Rect No. 180, Khewat No. 86 Khatoni No. 163, situated at village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, District - SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sharer with the plaintiffs in the joint khewat No. 86. The plainti purchased 10 kanals land comprised in khasra No Raje Ram/vendor 28.1.1987. Similarly, land comprised in khasra No. 180//12 and 13 from Raje Ram for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ was averred that sum of Rs. 18,000/ the sale deed with a view to avoid pre sale in question was made by Raje Ram to to plaintiffs. Plaintif sale of suit land, they payment of Rs. 18,000/ 4. and contested the suit by filing written statement dated 25.07. Vendor Raje Ram/defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.3.1990, as he failed to put in appearance despite service. was the pleaded on payment of Rs. 30,000/ allegation that plaintiffs were co Raje Ram on the date of sale of suit land parties had sharer with the plaintiffs in the joint khewat No. 86. The plainti purchased 10 kanals land comprised in khasra No vendor/defendant no.2, vide 1987. Similarly, defendant no.1/ appellant land comprised in khasra No. 180//12 and 13 from Raje Ram for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 25.4. averred that in fact suit land was purchase of Rs. 18,000/- but the amount of Rs. 30,000/ the sale deed with a view to avoid pre-emption suit. Plaintiffs pleaded that sale in question was made by Raje Ram to Rajmal . Plaintiffs being co-sharer with vendor sale of suit land, they have preferential right to pre payment of Rs. 18,000/-. Hence, present suit was filed on 02.02.1990. Upon notice, the defendant and contested the suit by filing written statement dated 25.07. Vendor Raje Ram/defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.3.1990, as he failed to put in appearance despite service. pleaded case of the appellant that on payment of Rs. 30,000/- as sale consideration. He controverted the allegation that plaintiffs were co-sharers in the joint khewat with vendor Raje Ram on the date of sale of suit land; and instea purchased specific fields with specific khasra numbers sharer with the plaintiffs in the joint khewat No. 86. The plaintiffs had purchased 10 kanals land comprised in khasra No. 180//22 and 185/2 from registered sale deed dated defendant no.1/ appellant Rajmal had purchased 16K land comprised in khasra No. 180//12 and 13 from Raje Ram for a egistered sale deed dated 25.4.1989. It in fact suit land was purchased by defendant Rajmal in the but the amount of Rs. 30,000/-was wrongly inserted in emption suit. Plaintiffs pleaded that Rajmal without giving any notice with vendor Raje Ram on the date of preferential right to pre-empt the suit land on Hence, present suit was filed on 02.02.1990. notice, the defendant No.1 had put in appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement dated 25.07.1990. Vendor Raje Ram/defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.3.1990, as he failed to put in appearance despite service. It case of the appellant that he has purchased the suit land as sale consideration. He controverted the sharers in the joint khewat with vendor ; and instead, asserted that both purchased specific fields with specific khasra numbers from 23 ffs had . 180//22 and 185/2 from registered sale deed dated K land comprised in khasra No. 180//12 and 13 from Raje Ram for a 1989. It by defendant Rajmal in the was wrongly inserted in emption suit. Plaintiffs pleaded that ithout giving any notice Raje Ram on the date of empt the suit land on No.1 had put in appearance . Vendor Raje Ram/defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide It he has purchased the suit land as sale consideration. He controverted the sharers in the joint khewat with vendor that both from SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Raje Ram. Therefore, pl from which he purcha exclusive possession of suit land on the basis of mutual partition among the co-sharers. It plaintiffs hav that plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file and that the suit ha it was prayed that the suit of 5. were framed 6. evidence adduced by the parties, decree dated 30.08.1991 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that “In the light of my findings on various issues particularly on issue No.1, the Ram. Therefore, plaintiffs never became co from which he purchased suit land. Moreover, exclusive possession of suit land on the basis of mutual partition among the sharers. It was also averred that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit; that plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file and that the suit had been filed with a view to harass prayed that the suit of plaintiffs be dismissed with co On the basis of pleadings were framed by the learned trial court vide order dated “I. Whether the plaintiffs have superior right to pre sale? OPP. II. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith and was actually paid? OPP III. If issue No. 1 is not proved then what is market price of the suit property? OPP. IV. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD V. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own acts and conduct? VI. Relief.” On the basis of pleadings evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.1991 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that “In the light of my findings on various issues particularly on issue No.1, the aintiffs never became co-sharer in the joint khata Moreover, vendor was owner in exclusive possession of suit land on the basis of mutual partition among the averred that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable; e no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit; that plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file present suit been filed with a view to harass the defendants. Thus, plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues vide order dated 25.07.1990: - I. Whether the plaintiffs have superior right to pre-empt the II. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith and is not proved then what is market price of the IV. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the V. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present conduct? If so, to what effect? OPD. On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.1991 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that “In the light of my findings on various issues particularly on issue No.1, the 23 joint khata vendor was owner in exclusive possession of suit land on the basis of mutual partition among the ; e no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit; present suit Thus, of the parties, following issues empt the II. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith and is not proved then what is market price of the IV. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the V. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present and oral & documentary learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.1991 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that “In the light of my findings on various issues particularly on issue No.1, the SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suit of the plaintiffs is decreed on payment of Rs.30,000/ Panjam. The plaintiff shall now deposit Rs.27,750/ been mentioned in written statement and sale deed) within one month from the date of this order…”. dismissed with costs and decree dated 24.05.1993. Hence, present second appeal No.1. 7. the learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff only on the ground that counsel submits that the mode of partition (Ex.P6) was proposed and finalized by the Assistant Collector vide D1). It is contended that once Naksha B partition. It is submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court was in error in holding that appeal was pending therefore, partition was not complete appeal has no meaning severed from date of order of partition/24.7.1991 appeal against on 05.12.1991. Others v. Ram Jas PLJ 345 wherein it is held that suit of the plaintiffs is decreed on payment of Rs.30,000/ Panjam. The plaintiff shall now deposit Rs.27,750/ been mentioned in written statement and sale deed) within one month from the date of this order…”. The appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was with costs by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.1993. Hence, present second appeal Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits the learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff only on the ground that instrument of partition has not been prepared. Learned counsel submits that the mode of partition (Ex.P6) was proposed and finalized by the Assistant Collector vide Naksha B It is contended that once Naksha BE is prepared, the same is equal to It is submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court was in error in holding that appeal was pending against said partition was not complete. It is submitted that p appeal has no meaning; and the joint status of the parties is deemed to from date of order of partition/24.7.1991 appeal against the said order dated 24.7.1991 on 05.12.1991. In support, learned counsel places reliance upon v. Ram Jas & Others, (P&H) (DB): Law Finder Doc Id # 74952 wherein it is held that: suit of the plaintiffs is decreed on payment of Rs.30,000/- including raze- Panjam. The plaintiff shall now deposit Rs.27,750/- (registration fee has not been mentioned in written statement and sale deed) within one month from The appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.1993. Hence, present second appeal by defendant Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that the learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff only on the partition has not been prepared. Learned counsel submits that the mode of partition (Ex.P6) was proposed and Naksha BE dated 24.07.1991 (Ex. is prepared, the same is equal to It is submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court was in error in against said order of partition; and It is submitted that pendency of the and the joint status of the parties is deemed to be from date of order of partition/24.7.1991. Moreover, plaintiffs’ der dated 24.7.1991 was dismissed by Collector In support, learned counsel places reliance upon Har Devi & Law Finder Doc Id # 74952/1974 23 - (registration fee has not been mentioned in written statement and sale deed) within one month from The appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment by defendant that the learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff only on the partition has not been prepared. Learned counsel submits that the mode of partition (Ex.P6) was proposed and Ex. is prepared, the same is equal to It is submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court was in error in ; and endency of the be Moreover, plaintiffs’ was dismissed by Collector & 1974 SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 50056 9. this specific field and obtained exclusive possession vide sale deed dated 28.01.1987 (Ex. P plaintiff having purchased separate share comprising specific numbers hence not a co separate share of Raje Ram and his brother Bhal Singh. shown as joint owner in Jamabandi (Ex ld. Counsel places reliance upon (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 50739 in 1981 PLJ 204 70625. 10. appellant is squarely covered by the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Legal Heirs & Others wherein it is “Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, emption suit - Ground of being co Partition of joint land - Appeal pending entitled to pre-empt being not a co decree.” Ld. Counsel also relies upon Financial Commissioner, Haryana, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 50056 Ld. Counsel further submits this specific field and obtained exclusive possession vide sale deed dated (Ex. P-3) therefore, he cannot claim to be a co plaintiff having purchased separate share comprising specific numbers hence not a co-sharer. Jamabandi for the year 1987 separate share of Raje Ram and his brother Bhal Singh. shown as joint owner in Jamabandi (Ex. P-2). places reliance upon 1991 PLJ 346 (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 50739; and Full Bench judgment 1981 PLJ 204/Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, (P&H)(F.B.) : Law Finder Doc Id # Ld. Counsel further submits that appellant is squarely covered by the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) & Others v. Jagtar Singh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2196046 wherein it is categorically laid down that joint status of the parties come emption Act, 1913, Sections 4 and 21 - Pre- Ground of being co-sharer - Suit pending - Appeal pending - Pre-emptor not empt being not a co-sharer on date of Ld. Counsel also relies upon 1992 PLJ 45/Lala Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 50056. submits that plaintiff had purchased this specific field and obtained exclusive possession vide sale deed dated 3) therefore, he cannot claim to be a co-sharer. The plaintiff having purchased separate share comprising specific numbers is for the year 1987-88 (Ex. P-2) also shows separate share of Raje Ram and his brother Bhal Singh. And plaintiff is not 2). In support of this contention, 1991 PLJ 346/Surjit Singh v. Bikhu Ram, Full Bench judgment of this Court Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, (P&H)(F.B.) : Law Finder Doc Id # Ld. Counsel further submits that the present case of the appellant is squarely covered by the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) through v. Jagtar Singh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2196046; categorically laid down that joint status of the parties comes to 23 - - emptor not sharer on date of Ram v. purchased this specific field and obtained exclusive possession vide sale deed dated . The is 2) also shows plaintiff is not In support of this contention, Singh v. Bikhu Ram, of this Court Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, (P&H)(F.B.) : Law Finder Doc Id # the present case of the appellant is squarely covered by the latest judgment of the Hon'ble through ; to SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document an end on the date when mode of partition has been sanctioned Counsel submits that in the present case undisputedly on 1), Assistant Collector partition by preparing separate Khatonis (Ex. D said date, joint status of the parties, if any, stood severed. prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material error of law and fact; and therefore deserve to be set aside. 11. respondent/plaintiff that from Raje Ram land from Rect. No. 180, Killa No. 22. In this way Plaintiffs were co with Vendor Raje land. It is contended that issuance of Sana was issued after the passing of trial Court decree o on date of sale, Suit of the plaintiff cannot be defeated. partition/Sana that partition had taken place till instrument of partition Another, (H.P.) : Law Finder Doc Id # 62852 of Himachal Pradesh had an end on the date when mode of partition has been sanctioned Counsel submits that in the present case undisputedly on 1), Assistant Collector had passed the order sanc partition by preparing separate Khatonis (Ex. D said date, joint status of the parties, if any, stood severed. prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material law and fact; and therefore deserve to be set aside. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff that the suit land was purchased by defendant Rajmal Ram from rect. No. 180. Plaintiffs had also purchased 3 kanals land from Rect. No. 180, Killa No. 22. In this way Plaintiffs were co with Vendor Raje Ram, and they have a superior right to pre It is contended that partition is deem Sanad Taksim. In the present case, admittedly Sana after the passing of trial Court decree o on date of sale, Suit-land was joint in nature. As such, the plaintiff cannot be defeated. It is reiterated that partition/Sanad Taksim had not been finalized, therefore, it cannot be held that partition had taken place; and partition shall be deemed to be pending till instrument of partition is prepared. In Khem Dutt , (H.P.) : Law Finder Doc Id # 62852 of Himachal Pradesh had held that drawing up of instrument of partition is an end on the date when mode of partition has been sanctioned. Ld. Counsel submits that in the present case undisputedly on 24.07.1991 (Ex.D- passed the order sanctioning the mode of partition by preparing separate Khatonis (Ex. D-2 and D-3). As such, on the said date, joint status of the parties, if any, stood severed. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material law and fact; and therefore deserve to be set aside. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the suit land was purchased by defendant Rajmal from rect. No. 180. Plaintiffs had also purchased 3 kanals land from Rect. No. 180, Killa No. 22. In this way Plaintiffs were co-sharers and they have a superior right to pre-empt the suit partition is deemed to be complete only upon In the present case, admittedly Sanad Taksim after the passing of trial Court decree on 30.08.1991. Therefore, land was joint in nature. As such, right of pre-emption reiterated that as instrument of Taksim had not been finalized, therefore, it cannot be held partition shall be deemed to be pending Khem Dutt & Others v. Palkia & , (H.P.) : Law Finder Doc Id # 62852/1982 PLR 391, the High Court held that drawing up of instrument of partition is 23 . Ld. - tioning the mode of on the It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the suit land was purchased by defendant Rajmal from rect. No. 180. Plaintiffs had also purchased 3 kanals sharers empt the suit ed to be complete only upon Taksim Therefore, emption as instrument of Taksim had not been finalized, therefore, it cannot be held partition shall be deemed to be pending & , the High Court held that drawing up of instrument of partition is SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document necessary to make the partition legally effective. As long as it is not prepared, partition would not become legally effective and there will not be severance of status as a co an appeal ha from documents EX. P prepared at the decision of the case. 12. from which the partition was to take effect. This date was to be mentioned in the instrument of partition as laid down in section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Since no instrument of partition ha therefore, q partition was to take place d partition has become final right to pre-empt the suit land. 13. evidence without any objection from the opposite counsel before the trial court. In addition to that the vendee/ appellant be co-sharers in the khewat comprising the for partition against them. acknowledgment of the sale deed that the plaintiffs were co the time of sale of the suit land in favor of defendant no. 1 as well as at the necessary to make the partition legally effective. As long as it is not prepared, partition would not become legally effective and there will not be severance of status as a co-sharer in the land. In an appeal had been filed against the order dated 24.07.1991 as is clear from documents EX. P-7 and EX P-8. No instrument of partition was prepared at the decision of the case. It is argued that in order Ex. D- from which the partition was to take effect. This date was to be mentioned in the instrument of partition as laid down in section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Since no instrument of partition ha uestion of mentioning the date with effect from which the partition was to take place did not arise. Therefore, it can partition has become final; and therefore, the plaintiff empt the suit land. It is submitted that the sale deed E evidence without any objection from the opposite counsel before the trial court. In addition to that the vendee/ appellant sharers in the khewat comprising the for partition against them. The filing of that application itself amounts to acknowledgment of the sale deed Ex P-3 by him. So, there is no dispute left that the plaintiffs were co-shares in the khewat comprising the suit la the time of sale of the suit land in favor of defendant no. 1 as well as at the necessary to make the partition legally effective. As long as it is not prepared, partition would not become legally effective and there will not sharer in the land. In present case admittedly the order dated 24.07.1991 as is clear 8. No instrument of partition was -1 no date has been mentioned from which the partition was to take effect. This date was to be mentioned in the instrument of partition as laid down in section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Since no instrument of partition had been issued, uestion of mentioning the date with effect from which the id not arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that and therefore, the plaintiffs have a superior sale deed Ex. P-3 was tendered in evidence without any objection from the opposite counsel before the trial court. In addition to that the vendee/ appellant admitting the plaintiffs to sharers in the khewat comprising the suit land, filed an application The filing of that application itself amounts to 3 by him. So, there is no dispute left shares in the khewat comprising the suit land at the time of sale of the suit land in favor of defendant no. 1 as well as at the 23 necessary to make the partition legally effective. As long as it is not prepared, partition would not become legally effective and there will not case admittedly the order dated 24.07.1991 as is clear 8. No instrument of partition was no date has been mentioned from which the partition was to take effect. This date was to be mentioned in the instrument of partition as laid down in section 121 of the Punjab been issued, uestion of mentioning the date with effect from which the not be said that have a superior 3 was tendered in evidence without any objection from the opposite counsel before the trial the plaintiffs to filed an application The filing of that application itself amounts to 3 by him. So, there is no dispute left nd at the time of sale of the suit land in favor of defendant no. 1 as well as at the SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document time of institution of this suit. Co-sharer at the time of passing of the decree on instrument of par submits that Finder Doc Id # 50011 joint status of the parties does not come to an end with the preparation of "NAKSHA BE" but comes to an end only with the preparation of instrument of partition. In after the passing of the de sharers in the suit land till the date of decree being co-sharers their superior right of pre acknowledged by the trial court as well as by the first Appe 14. following judgments (Punjab)(FB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 54224 Kumar & Others Singh, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 69870 these authorities is that there the pre right to pre-empt a sale and a pre favour by the first court, it is not necessary that he should retain that superior right of pre vendee against the decree. It was also specifically time of institution of this suit. It is contended that the plaintiffs sharer at the time of passing of the decree on instrument of partition was prepared on 3.1.1992. submits that in case of Pritam Singh v. Jaskaur Singh, (P&H)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 50011, the Division Bench of our own joint status of the parties does not come to an end with the preparation of "NAKSHA BE" but comes to an end only with the preparation of instrument of partition. In present case since the instrument of partition was prepared after the passing of the decree by the trial court, the plaintiffs remained co sharers in the suit land till the date of decree sharers their superior right of pre acknowledged by the trial court as well as by the first Appe Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff following judgments: (a) Ramji Lal & Another (Punjab)(FB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 54224; (b) & Others, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 74839 Singh, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 69870. The gist of the law laid down in these authorities is that there the pre-emptor has proved his preferential empt a sale and a pre-emption decree has been passed favour by the first court, it is not necessary that he should retain that superior right of pre-emption till the hearing of the appeal preferred by the vendee against the decree. It was also specifically It is contended that the plaintiffs were also sharer at the time of passing of the decree on 30.08.1991 because the tition was prepared on 3.1.1992. In support, ld. Counsel Pritam Singh v. Jaskaur Singh, (P&H)(DB) : Law ench of our own Court, held that the joint status of the parties does not come to an end with the preparation of "NAKSHA BE" but comes to an end only with the preparation of instrument case since the instrument of partition was prepared cree by the trial court, the plaintiffs remained co- sharers in the suit land till the date of decree; and on the strength of their sharers their superior right of pre-emption was rightly acknowledged by the trial court as well as by the first Appellate Court. for the Plaintiffs also relies upon the & Another v. State of Punjab & Others, (b) Rikhi Ram & Another v. Ram Doc Id # 74839; (c) Didar Singh v. Ishar The gist of the law laid down in emptor has proved his preferential emption decree has been passed in his favour by the first court, it is not necessary that he should retain that emption till the hearing of the appeal preferred by the vendee against the decree. It was also specifically observed by the Hon’ble 23 were also the In support, ld. Counsel Pritam Singh v. Jaskaur Singh, (P&H)(DB) : Law the joint status of the parties does not come to an end with the preparation of "NAKSHA BE" but comes to an end only with the preparation of instrument case since the instrument of partition was prepared - and on the strength of their emption was rightly the , v. Ram Didar Singh v. Ishar The gist of the law laid down in emptor has proved his preferential in his favour by the first court, it is not necessary that he should retain that emption till the hearing of the appeal preferred by the by the Hon’ble SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Full Bench of this Court in is passed by the first court, the right of pre which can only be taken away from the pre retrospective legislation. above cited authorities pre-emption of the pre partition of the khewat comprising the suit land had been prepared during the pendency of the appeal because the status of the parties has to be seen at the time of decree and at th sharers in the khewat comprised in the suit land because the instrument of partition had not been prepared by th 15. observed in Jinda Ram Finder Doc Id # 120649 Full Bench of this Court in Ramji Lal supra that when a pre is passed by the first court, the right of pre- which can only be taken away from the pre retrospective legislation. It is contended that therefore, above cited authorities the vendee defendant can emption of the pre-emptor on the ground that an instrument of partition of the khewat comprising the suit land had been prepared during pendency of the appeal because the status of the parties has to be seen at the time of decree and at that time the plaintiffs were very much co sharers in the khewat comprised in the suit land because the instrument of partition had not been prepared by that time. Ld. Ld. Counsel submits that Jinda Ram (Dead) by LRs v. Ram Prakash Finder Doc Id # 120649 D/d 10.11.1995, has observed as follows: "We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that the learned Judge was not right in holding that the plaintiff would lose his right of pre-emption on account of a partition that had taken place pending appeal even though the right of the plaintiff as a co sharer to preempt was established in the trial Court and not challenged by the Vendees-defendants. The relevant period to exercise the right of pre-emption was effected and when the suit was filed claiming that right. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is set that when a pre-emption decree -emption became a vested right which can only be taken away from the pre-emptor decree holder by nded that therefore, in view of the the vendee defendant cannot defeat the right of emptor on the ground that an instrument of partition of the khewat comprising the suit land had been prepared during pendency of the appeal because the status of the parties has to be seen time the plaintiffs were very much co- sharers in the khewat comprised in the suit land because the instrument of at time. Ld. Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has v. Ram Prakash & Another, (SC) : Law has observed as follows: – "We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that the learned Judge was not right in holding that the plaintiff would lose his right of emption on account of a partition that had taken place appeal even though the right of the plaintiff as a co- sharer to preempt was established in the trial Court and not defendants. The relevant period to emption is the period when the sale when the suit was filed claiming that right. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is set 23 emption decree a vested right emptor decree holder by in view of the not defeat the right of emptor on the ground that an instrument of partition of the khewat comprising the suit land had been prepared during pendency of the appeal because the status of the parties has to be seen - sharers in the khewat comprised in the suit land because the instrument of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has , (SC) : Law "We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that the learned Judge was not right in holding that the plaintiff would lose his right of emption on account of a partition that had taken place - sharer to preempt was established in the trial Court and not defendants. The relevant period to is the period when the sale when the suit was filed claiming that right. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is set SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. Jhabbar Singh been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhabbar Singh (supra) that the relevant date right of pre-emption, is the date of sale, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. This judgment will not provide any help to the appellan has not been able to show any evidence on the record to defeat the right of the plaintiff and has been defeating the rights of pre 17. upon the plaintiffs under Section 19 of the Act of 1913 as admitted by the defendant in his cross defendant witness and admitted that no notice was given to the plaintiffs before entering of agreemen is reiterated that sharers with Vendor Raje Ram on the date of sale of suit land, they have preferential rights to pre examined and deposed that they are still co market value of land is 20,000/ aside. The appellants are entitled to a decree as prayed for regarding their right of pre-emption." Ld. Counsel further distinguishes the judgment Jhabbar Singh supra relied upon by the appellant been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhabbar Singh (supra) that the relevant date on which the pre emption, is the date of sale, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. This judgment will not provide any help to the appellan has not been able to show any evidence on the record to defeat the right of the plaintiff and has been unable to point any legitimate means for defeating the rights of pre-emption. It is lastly submitted that even upon the plaintiffs under Section 19 of the Act of 1913 as admitted by the defendant in his cross-examination. DW-1-Rajmal examined himself as sole defendant witness and admitted that no notice was given to the plaintiffs before entering of agreement between Vendor is reiterated that Plaintiffs pleaded their case by stating that being co sharers with Vendor Raje Ram on the date of sale of suit land, they have preferential rights to pre-empt the suit land. PW1 examined and deposed that they are still co market value of land is 20,000/- PA. It is accordingly prayed that the aside. The appellants are entitled to a decree as prayed for emption." Ld. Counsel further distinguishes the judgment in case of appellant by submitting that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhabbar Singh on which the pre-emptor is to establish his emption, is the date of sale, the date of the filing of the suit, and the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. This judgment will not provide any help to the appellant as the appellant has not been able to show any evidence on the record to defeat the right of able to point any legitimate means for It is lastly submitted that even no notice was served upon the plaintiffs under Section 19 of the Act of 1913 as admitted by the Rajmal examined himself as sole defendant witness and admitted that no notice was given to the plaintiffs t between Vendor- Raje Ram and defendant. It Plaintiffs pleaded their case by stating that being co- sharers with Vendor Raje Ram on the date of sale of suit land, they have empt the suit land. PW1- Man Singh was examined and deposed that they are still co-sharers in joint khata and is accordingly prayed that the 23 aside. The appellants are entitled to a decree as prayed for in case of has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhabbar Singh emptor is to establish his , and the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. t as the appellant has not been able to show any evidence on the record to defeat the right of able to point any legitimate means for d upon the plaintiffs under Section 19 of the Act of 1913 as admitted by the Rajmal examined himself as sole defendant witness and admitted that no notice was given to the plaintiffs It - sharers with Vendor Raje Ram on the date of sale of suit land, they have s sharers in joint khata and is accordingly prayed that the SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document present, Second Appeal courts below be upheld. 18. 19. the case file in great detail. behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. 20. and were owners i.e. 42K 15M Ram is owner of 42K 15M was entered on the basis of family partition with his brother Bhal Singh. 28.01.1987: On 0) and 185/2Min (7 Harchand for Rs. 16000/ was sanctioned on 31.10.1990 (Ex. P 25.4.1989: Vide sold 16K-OM (180/12 (8 Rs. 30,000/- situated in village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, Distt. Bhiwani. 1.9.1989: On revenue authorities present, Second Appeal be dismissed and judgment courts below be upheld. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Defendant no.2 Raje Ram and Bhal Singh are brothers and were owners of land measuring 85 K 11 M M each. As per Jamabandi for the year 1987 Ram is owner of 42K 15M of land; and mutation No. 1039 dated 18.09.1986 was entered on the basis of family partition with his brother Bhal Singh. On 28.01.1987 (Ex. P-3) Raje Ram sold 10K 0) and 185/2Min (7-0) to plaintiffs/Bir Singh and Mann Singh sons of Harchand for Rs. 16000/-. Mutation on the basis of the sale deed (Ex. P was sanctioned on 31.10.1990 (Ex. P-4). Vide registered sale deed dated OM (180/12 (8-0), 13(8-0) to appellant/ -. Present dispute relates to this piece of land i.e. 16K situated in village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, Distt. Bhiwani. On 01.09.1989 appellant filed application (Ex revenue authorities for partition of the land. Page 11 of 23 be dismissed and judgments and decrees of the No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. rned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions made on are as follows: – Raje Ram and Bhal Singh are brothers land measuring 85 K 11 M to the extent of half share per Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 (Ex. P-2) Raje and mutation No. 1039 dated 18.09.1986 was entered on the basis of family partition with his brother Bhal Singh. 3) Raje Ram sold 10K-OM (180/22 Min (3- Bir Singh and Mann Singh sons of . Mutation on the basis of the sale deed (Ex. P-3) dated 25.04.1989 (Ex. P-1) Raje Ram appellant/Rajmal son of Beg Raj for Present dispute relates to this piece of land i.e. 16K-0M situated in village Naloi, Tehsil Siwani, Distt. Bhiwani. application (Ex. P-5) before the land. 23 the and perused I find no merit in the submissions made on Raje Ram and Bhal Singh are brothers of half share 2) Raje and mutation No. 1039 dated 18.09.1986 - Bir Singh and Mann Singh sons of 3) 1) Raje Ram Raj for 0M before the SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2.2.1990: Soon plaintiffs for possession by way of pre to the land purchased by Rajmal from Raje Ram i.e. 16K Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. 20.03.1990: Defendant No. 2 25.07.1990: Defendant no. 20.03.1990: Defendant No. 2 25.07.1990: Defendant no. 1/present appellant file 25.07.1990: Issues were framed by the Sub Judge, First Class, Siwani. 12.10.1990: before the Assistant Collector 2 Collector Siwani proposed mode of partition on 12.10.1990 (Ex. P 24.7.1991: On passed order sanctioning the mode of partition (Naksha B separate Khatonis D 30.7.1991: On Collector, Bhiwani partition. 07.08.1991: In the civil suit, the 14.08.1991: Plaintiffs. 31.8.1991: On plaintiffs for pre Soon thereafter, on 02.02.1990 present for possession by way of pre-emption against Rajmal with respect to the land purchased by Rajmal from Raje Ram i.e. 16K the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No. 2-vendor Raje Ram was proceeded ex Defendant no. 1/present appellant file Issues were framed by the Sub Judge, First Class, Siwani. The plaintiffs filed objections to the partition application Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Siwani Collector Siwani proposed mode of partition on 12.10.1990 (Ex. P On 24.07.1991 (Ex.D-1) Assistant Collector 2 passed order sanctioning the mode of partition (Naksha B separate Khatonis D-2 and D-3 were prepared in view of Ex. On 30.07.1991 (Ex.P-8) appeal was filed by ector, Bhiwani against order dated 24.07.1991 In the civil suit, the evidence was closed by court order. The rebuttal evidence was closed by the counsel for the On 31.08.1991 the ld. Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for pre-emption, holding that partition cannot be accepted before present Civil Suit was filed by the emption against Rajmal with respect to the land purchased by Rajmal from Raje Ram i.e. 16K-0M. the suit was given to the defendants. vendor Raje Ram was proceeded ex parte. Defendant no. 1/present appellant filed written statement. Issues were framed by the Sub Judge, First Class, Siwani. objections to the partition application Grade, Siwani; and thereafter, Assistant Collector Siwani proposed mode of partition on 12.10.1990 (Ex. P- 6). Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Siwani passed order sanctioning the mode of partition (Naksha BE). On 24.07.1991 3 were prepared in view of Ex.D-1. 8) appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before dated 24.07.1991 sanctioning mode of evidence was closed by court order. The rebuttal evidence was closed by the counsel for the the ld. Trial Court decreed the suit of the partition cannot be accepted before 23 by the emption against Rajmal with respect objections to the partition application and thereafter, Assistant Grade, Siwani ). On 24.07.1991 before anctioning mode of The rebuttal evidence was closed by the counsel for the the ld. Trial Court decreed the suit of the partition cannot be accepted before SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the preparation of Sanad condition on payment of R 5.12.1991: In the meantime, dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs against order of sanctioning of mode of partition dated 24.07.1991 11.01.1991/92 by the Civil Court, before the Addl. District Judge, Hisar 3.1.1992: During the pendency of appeal, was prepared in view of the 24.5.1993: On of the appellant dated 30.08.1991. 1993: The Present preferred by the defendant 21. the suit property was not joint as specific portions of land had been bought by the plaintiffs vide their s which mutation been argued by the plaintiffs that if this was the case, there was no occasion for the appellant to file partition application 5, before the revenue authorities. the preparation of Sanad Taqsim/Partition. The civil suit condition on payment of Rs. 30,000/- including Raje In the meantime, the ld. Collector vide order dated 05.12.1991 dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs against order of sanctioning of mode of on dated 24.07.1991. 11.01.1991/92: Against the judgement and decree by the Civil Court, Siwani, an appeal bearing no. CA/10/1991/1992 was filed before the Addl. District Judge, Hisar. During the pendency of appeal, prepared in view of the Collector's order dated 05.12.1991. On 24.05.1993 Ld. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant with cost by upholding the judgment of the ld. Trial Court .08.1991. The Present Second Appeal bearing no. RSA preferred by the defendant no.1-appellant - It has firstly been argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit property was not joint as specific portions of land had been bought by the plaintiffs vide their sale deed dated 28.1.1987 Ex.P which mutation no.1152 Ex.P-4 was sanctioned. been argued by the plaintiffs that if this was the case, there was no occasion for the appellant to file partition application before the revenue authorities. A perusal of the record shows that The civil suit was decreed with a including Raje- Panjam. the ld. Collector vide order dated 05.12.1991 dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs against order of sanctioning of mode of Against the judgement and decree dated 31.8.1991 passed , an appeal bearing no. CA/10/1991/1992 was filed During the pendency of appeal, on 03.01.1992 Sanad Partition Collector's order dated 05.12.1991. 24.05.1993 Ld. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment of the ld. Trial Court Appeal bearing no. RSA-1339 of 1993 was Rajmal before this Court. It has firstly been argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit property was not joint as specific portions of land had been bought 28.1.1987 Ex.P-3 on the basis of 4 was sanctioned. On the other hand, it has been argued by the plaintiffs that if this was the case, there was no occasion for the appellant to file partition application dated 1.9.1989 Ex.P- A perusal of the record shows that it is 23 with a the ld. Collector vide order dated 05.12.1991 dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs against order of sanctioning of mode of passed , an appeal bearing no. CA/10/1991/1992 was filed ition 24.05.1993 Ld. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment of the ld. Trial Court of 1993 was It has firstly been argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit property was not joint as specific portions of land had been bought 3 on the basis of On the other hand, it has been argued by the plaintiffs that if this was the case, there was no - it is SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the specific finding of the trial court in para 11 of the judgment 30.8.1991 that “ specific Khas co-sharers in Rect. No.180. this way, plaintiffs have a superior right to pre co-sharers in Rect. No. 180 from which defendant no.1.” 22. the present second appeal is effect. Would it be on the date the Assistant, Collector finalised. Or would it be partition/Sana 23. instrument of partition after the appeal preferred by the plaintiff 24.7.1991 of preparation of Naksha B suit for pre-emption was decreed on 30.08.1991 i.e. NAKSHA BE but before preparation of instrument for partition. date of 24.7.1991 is of great significance as, admittedly, (Ex.D-1), Assistant Collector partition by prepari the specific finding of the trial court in para 11 of the judgment 30.8.1991 that “In this case, plaintiffs had purchased some land bearing specific Khasra Numbers from Rect. No. 180. In this way, they have become sharers in Rect. No.180. The Suit land is also comprised in Rect no.180. In this way, plaintiffs have a superior right to pre sharers in Rect. No. 180 from which defendant no.1.” The moot point, therefore, that remains to be decided in the present second appeal is as to on which date would partition take effect. Would it be on the date of passing of order date 24. the Assistant, Collector 2nd Grade Siwani, whereby mode of partition was finalised. Or would it be on the date on which instrument of partition/Sanad Takseem is drawn up? It is the own admitted case of the plaintiffs that the instrument of partition was prepared by Assistant Collector after the appeal preferred by the plaintiff of preparation of Naksha BE was dismissed on 05.12.1991. The emption was decreed on 30.08.1991 i.e. NAKSHA BE but before preparation of instrument for partition. date of 24.7.1991 is of great significance as, admittedly, 1), Assistant Collector had passed the order sanctioning the mode of partition by preparing separate Khatonis (Ex. D the specific finding of the trial court in para 11 of the judgment dated had purchased some land bearing Numbers from Rect. No. 180. In this way, they have become The Suit land is also comprised in Rect no.180. In this way, plaintiffs have a superior right to pre-empt the suit land being a sharers in Rect. No. 180 from which suit land was purchased by therefore, that remains to be decided in on which date would partition take passing of order date 24.7.1991 Ex.D-1 by Siwani, whereby mode of partition was on the date on which instrument of It is the own admitted case of the plaintiffs that the was prepared by Assistant Collector on 03.1.1992 after the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the order dated was dismissed on 05.12.1991. The emption was decreed on 30.08.1991 i.e. after preparation of NAKSHA BE but before preparation of instrument for partition. Thus, the date of 24.7.1991 is of great significance as, admittedly, on 24.07.1991 passed the order sanctioning the mode of ng separate Khatonis (Ex. D-2 and D-3) viz prior to 23 dated had purchased some land bearing Numbers from Rect. No. 180. In this way, they have become The Suit land is also comprised in Rect no.180. In empt the suit land being a suit land was purchased by therefore, that remains to be decided in on which date would partition take 1 by Siwani, whereby mode of partition was on the date on which instrument of It is the own admitted case of the plaintiffs that the 2 dated was dismissed on 05.12.1991. The preparation of the 24.07.1991 passed the order sanctioning the mode of prior to SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document decree of suit on 30.8.1991. would be squarely Supreme Court Singh supra-D/d 17.4.2023, “29. This Court in case of Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Others (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 820, had an occasion to deal with the said provisions contained 18, and it was observed as under: 30. If the said analogy is applied to the provisions contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act pertaining to the Partition, opinion that Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, s decision is required to be treated as the "decree". The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition as contemplated in Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act would be only ministerial or decree of suit on 30.8.1991. In this admitted circumstance, the present case squarely covered by the most recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in identical circumstances in case D/d 17.4.2023, wherein it is held as 29. This Court in case of Shub Karan Bubna Alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Others (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 820, had an occasion to deal with the said provisions contained 18, and it was observed as under:- "7. .... In a suit for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage decides whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and whether he is entitled to division and separate possession. The decision on these two issues is exercise of a judicial function and results in first stage decision termed as "decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(1) and termed as "preliminary decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the Code. The consequential division by metes and bounds, considered to be a ministerial or administrative act requiring the physical inspection, measurements, calculations and considering various permutations/combinations/alternatives of division is referred to the Collector under Rul matter of the final decree under Rule 18(2)." 30. If the said analogy is applied to the provisions contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act pertaining to the Partition, opinion that when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, s decision is required to be treated as the "decree". The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition as contemplated in Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act would be only ministerial or In this admitted circumstance, the present case overed by the most recent judgment of the Hon’ble rendered in identical circumstances in case of Jhabbar wherein it is held as under: - Shub Karan Bubna Alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Others (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 820, had an occasion to deal with the said provisions contained in Order XX, Rule "7. .... In a suit for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage decides whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and whether he is entitled to division and possession. The decision on these two issues is exercise of a judicial function and results in first stage decision termed as "decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(1) and termed as "preliminary decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the Code. vision by metes and bounds, considered to be a ministerial or administrative act requiring the physical inspection, measurements, calculations and considering various permutations/combinations/alternatives of division is referred to the Collector under Rule 18(1) and is the subject- matter of the final decree under Rule 18(2)." 30. If the said analogy is applied to the provisions contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act pertaining to the Partition, we are of the when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the "decree". The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition as contemplated in Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act would be only ministerial or 23 In this admitted circumstance, the present case overed by the most recent judgment of the Hon’ble Jhabbar Shub Karan Bubna Alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Others (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 820, had an in Order XX, Rule "7. .... In a suit for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage decides whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and whether he is entitled to division and possession. The decision on these two issues is exercise of a judicial function and results in first stage decision termed as "decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(1) and termed as "preliminary decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the Code. vision by metes and bounds, considered to be a ministerial or administrative act requiring the physical inspection, measurements, calculations and considering various permutations/combinations/alternatives of division is - 30. If the said analogy is applied to the provisions contained in the we are of the when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided uch decision is required to be treated as the "decree". The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition as contemplated in Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act would be only ministerial or SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document administrative act to be carried out to completely partition case instituted before the Revenue Officer. Hence, once the decision on the property to be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the joint status of the parties would stand severed to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition would follow thereafter. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it coul completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. 31. The first part of Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act states that "when a partition is completed". Meaning thereby, when the issue with regard to the properties to be divided and the mode of making partition stand decided and rights of the parties stan the Revenue Officer, the latter part of Section 121 for preparing the instrument of partition and recording the date of partition would come into play. Such actions required to be taken as contained in the latter part of Section 121, would administrative act to be carried out for completely disposing of the partition case instituted by the party before the Revenue Officer. Just as in case of a decree in civil suit, the adjudication conclusively decides the rights controversy, however the decree would be preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. In the same way, when the decision is taken by the Revenue Officer un completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of administrative act to be carried out to completely partition case instituted before the Revenue Officer. Hence, once the decision on the property to be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the joint status of the parties would stand severed on the date of such decision, subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition would follow thereafter. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. 31. The first part of Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act states that "when a partition is completed". Meaning thereby, when the issue with regard to the properties to be divided and the mode of making partition stand decided and rights of the parties stan the Revenue Officer, the latter part of Section 121 for preparing the instrument of partition and recording the date of partition would come into play. Such actions required to be taken as contained in the latter part of Section 121, would be only an executory work or administrative act to be carried out for completely disposing of the partition case instituted by the party before the Revenue Officer. Just as in case of a decree in civil suit, the adjudication conclusively decides the rights of the parties with regard to the matter in controversy, however the decree would be preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. In the same way, when the decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the partition would stand completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of administrative act to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case instituted before the Revenue Officer. Hence, once the decision on the property to be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the joint status of on the date of such decision, subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition would follow thereafter. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition d not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. 31. The first part of Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act states that "when a partition is completed". Meaning thereby, when the issue with regard to the properties to be divided and the mode of making partition stand decided and rights of the parties stand determined by the Revenue Officer, the latter part of Section 121 for preparing the instrument of partition and recording the date of partition would come into play. Such actions required to be taken as contained in the be only an executory work or administrative act to be carried out for completely disposing of the partition case instituted by the party before the Revenue Officer. Just as in case of a decree in civil suit, the adjudication conclusively of the parties with regard to the matter in controversy, however the decree would be preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. In the same way, when the decision is taken by the der Section 118, the partition would stand completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of 23 dispose of the partition case instituted before the Revenue Officer. Hence, once the decision on the property to be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the joint status of on the date of such decision, subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition would follow thereafter. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition d not be said that the partition was not 31. The first part of Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act states that "when a partition is completed". Meaning thereby, when the issue with regard to the properties to be divided and the mode of making d determined by the Revenue Officer, the latter part of Section 121 for preparing the instrument of partition and recording the date of partition would come into play. Such actions required to be taken as contained in the be only an executory work or administrative act to be carried out for completely disposing of the partition case instituted by the party before the Revenue Officer. Just as in case of a decree in civil suit, the adjudication conclusively of the parties with regard to the matter in controversy, however the decree would be preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. In the same way, when the decision is taken by the der Section 118, the partition would stand completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document partition wou out to completely dispose of the partition case. 32. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Assistant Collector i.e., concerned Revenue Officer vide the order dated 25.05.1982 ha Singh and others with regard to the mode of partition and had confirmed the mode of partition accordingly. On that day, the "Naksha Be" was already annexed to the file and the case was listed on 31.0 31.07.1982, the Assistant Collector passed the order stating inter alia that the Patwari and Kanungo were present, and they had explained the parties about the passage and the boundaries of the pl that as per "Naksha Be", the partition was accepted. The details of the number of khasras allotted to both the parties i.e., to Jhabbar Singh and others and to Jagtar Singh were also mentioned in the said order. The partition having been accepted Be", the joint status of the parties had stood severed. Of course, the said order dated 31.07.1982 was challenged by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh by way of an appeal before the Collector who vide the order dated 12.10.1982 had dismiss was further challenged by the said Jagtar Singh by filing revision application before the Commissioner. Though, the Commissioner had initially granted stay against the operation of the order dated 31.07.1982 upto 16 extended thereafter. Under the circumstances, the joint status of the parties had come to an end on 31.07.1982, when the Assistant Collector passed the order and when the same was confirmed by the Collecto under the circumstances, had rightly held that the plaintiff Jagtar partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. 32. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Assistant Collector i.e., concerned Revenue Officer vide the order dated 25.05.1982 had rejected the objections raised by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh and others with regard to the mode of partition and had confirmed the mode of partition accordingly. On that day, the "Naksha Be" was already annexed to the file and the case was listed on 31.05.1982 for hearing the objections as to the "Naksha Be". On 31.07.1982, the Assistant Collector passed the order stating inter alia that the Patwari and Kanungo were present, and they had explained the parties about the passage and the boundaries of the pl that as per "Naksha Be", the partition was accepted. The details of the number of khasras allotted to both the parties i.e., to Jhabbar Singh and others and to Jagtar Singh were also mentioned in the said order. The partition having been accepted Be", the joint status of the parties had stood severed. Of course, the said order dated 31.07.1982 was challenged by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh by way of an appeal before the Collector who vide the order dated 12.10.1982 had dismissed the same. The said order of Collector was further challenged by the said Jagtar Singh by filing revision application before the Commissioner. Though, the Commissioner had initially granted stay against the operation of the order dated 31.07.1982 upto 16.11.1982, admittedly the said stay was not further extended thereafter. Under the circumstances, the joint status of the parties had come to an end on 31.07.1982, when the Assistant Collector passed the order and when the same was confirmed by the Collector on 19.10.1982. The trial court and the appellate court, under the circumstances, had rightly held that the plaintiff Jagtar ld be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. 32. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Assistant Collector i.e., concerned Revenue Officer vide the order dated d rejected the objections raised by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh and others with regard to the mode of partition and had confirmed the mode of partition accordingly. On that day, the "Naksha Be" was already annexed to the file and the case was listed 5.1982 for hearing the objections as to the "Naksha Be". On 31.07.1982, the Assistant Collector passed the order stating inter alia that the Patwari and Kanungo were present, and they had explained the parties about the passage and the boundaries of the plots, and that as per "Naksha Be", the partition was accepted. The details of the number of khasras allotted to both the parties i.e., to Jhabbar Singh and others and to Jagtar Singh were also mentioned in the said order. The partition having been accepted as per the said "Naksha Be", the joint status of the parties had stood severed. Of course, the said order dated 31.07.1982 was challenged by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh by way of an appeal before the Collector who vide the order ed the same. The said order of Collector was further challenged by the said Jagtar Singh by filing revision application before the Commissioner. Though, the Commissioner had initially granted stay against the operation of the order dated .11.1982, admittedly the said stay was not further extended thereafter. Under the circumstances, the joint status of the parties had come to an end on 31.07.1982, when the Assistant Collector passed the order and when the same was confirmed by the r on 19.10.1982. The trial court and the appellate court, under the circumstances, had rightly held that the plaintiff Jagtar 23 ld be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried 32. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Assistant Collector i.e., concerned Revenue Officer vide the order dated d rejected the objections raised by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh and others with regard to the mode of partition and had confirmed the mode of partition accordingly. On that day, the "Naksha Be" was already annexed to the file and the case was listed 5.1982 for hearing the objections as to the "Naksha Be". On 31.07.1982, the Assistant Collector passed the order stating inter alia that the Patwari and Kanungo were present, and they had explained ots, and that as per "Naksha Be", the partition was accepted. The details of the number of khasras allotted to both the parties i.e., to Jhabbar Singh and others and to Jagtar Singh were also mentioned in the said as per the said "Naksha Be", the joint status of the parties had stood severed. Of course, the said order dated 31.07.1982 was challenged by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh by way of an appeal before the Collector who vide the order ed the same. The said order of Collector was further challenged by the said Jagtar Singh by filing revision application before the Commissioner. Though, the Commissioner had initially granted stay against the operation of the order dated .11.1982, admittedly the said stay was not further extended thereafter. Under the circumstances, the joint status of the parties had come to an end on 31.07.1982, when the Assistant Collector passed the order and when the same was confirmed by the r on 19.10.1982. The trial court and the appellate court, under the circumstances, had rightly held that the plaintiff Jagtar SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Singh did not possess the status of co i.e., on 01.12.1982, and that his right of pre till the date of passing of the decree in the suits. High Court had grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Punjab Pre the judgments and decrees passed by th court.” 24. judgment of this Court in Singh did not possess the status of co i.e., on 01.12.1982, and that his right of pre till the date of passing of the decree in the suits. High Court had grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Punjab Pre-emption Act and of Land Revenue Act, and in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by th ” Reliance may also be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Har Devi supra wherein it is held as follows: “2. The plaintiff-appellant Shrimati Har Devi filed a suit for pre emption to pre-empt the sale of land by Hari Singh alias Jagir Singh to Ram Jas, Savittar and Sultana sons of Chandan. The preemption was claimed on the ground that Shrimati Har Devi was a co-Sharer with the vendor. Thus, the only question which required determination was wh Shrimati Har Devi were co-sharers, and that relationship continued right up to the date of the decree of the trial Court in the pre-emption suit. It is common ground that the land in dispute was jointly owned by Hari Singh, Kako Devi. Partition proceedings were October, 1956 (see Exhibit X. 3). These proceedings did not reach their legitimate conclusion. Hari Singh sold his share to the vendees Ram Jas and others. Later on, Ram Jas took proceedings for partition of the land. To these proceedings Shrimati Bar Devi and Kako were parties. Kako is the mother of Ralla Singh. In these proceedings an order was recorded on the 21 st May, 1968 (Exhibit D.11) and its translation is Singh did not possess the status of co-sharer on the date of decree i.e., on 01.12.1982, and that his right of pre-emption had not survived till the date of passing of the decree in the suits. In our opinion, the High Court had grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of emption Act and of Land Revenue Act, and in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate Reliance may also be placed upon a Division Bench wherein it is held as follows: - appellant Shrimati Har Devi filed a suit for pre- the sale of land by Hari Singh alias Jagir Singh to Ram Jas, Savittar and Sultana sons of Chandan. The preemption was claimed on the ground that Shrimati Har Devi Sharer with the vendor. Thus, the only question which required determination was whether Hari Singh vendor and sharers, and that relationship continued right up to the date of the decree of the trial Court in emption suit. It is common ground that the land in dispute was jointly owned by Hari Singh, Kako and Shrimati Har Devi. Partition proceedings were initiated by Hari Singh on 21st October, 1956 (see Exhibit X. 3). These proceedings did not reach their legitimate conclusion. Hari Singh sold his share to the vendees Ram Jas and others. Later on, Ram Jas and others took proceedings for partition of the land. To these proceedings Shrimati Bar Devi and Kako were parties. Kako is the mother of Ralla Singh. In these proceedings an order was recorded on the 21 st May, 1968 (Exhibit D.11) and its translation is as follows :- 23 sharer on the date of decree survived In our opinion, the High Court had grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of emption Act and of Land Revenue Act, and in setting aside e trial court and the appellate Reliance may also be placed upon a Division Bench - the sale of land by Hari Singh alias Jagir Singh to Ram Jas, Savittar and Sultana sons of Chandan. The preemption was claimed on the ground that Shrimati Har Devi Sharer with the vendor. Thus, the only question which ether Hari Singh vendor and sharers, and that relationship continued right up to the date of the decree of the trial Court in emption suit. It is common ground that the land in and Shrimati Har initiated by Hari Singh on 21st October, 1956 (see Exhibit X. 3). These proceedings did not reach their legitimate conclusion. Hari Singh sold his share to and others took proceedings for partition of the land. To these proceedings Shrimati Bar Devi and Kako were parties. Kako is the mother of Ralla Singh. In these proceedings an order was recorded on the - SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "Counsel for the parties present. Demarcation has been effected on the spot. Partition has been effected according to the plan. Now, naqshajeem be obtained for 4.6.1968." On the 17th June, 1968, order Exhibit D.12 was passed which records that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the order dated 21st May, 1968, had expired and, therefore, instrument of partition is prepared and will take effect from Rabi 1968. It is thus obvious that by June, 1968, the joint status of the parties had been severed and, therefore, the plaintiff pre-emptor ceased to be a co- decree which was passed on 31st July, 1968. The trial Court, in view of these facts, could not proceed to decree the preemption suit, particularly in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramji Lal and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 Current Law Journal 276 has been held that a pre-emptor has to maintain his preferential right not only at the date o course of the litigation but also at the date of the trial Court's decree. In the instant case the relationship as co come to an end before the decree was passed and, therefore, the suit for pre-emption could not be dec that the learned Single Judge has taken. The Courts below which dealt with the suit took the view that the relationship as co-sharers had not ceased by the time the trial Court passed the decree. 3. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of Section 118 of Land Revenue Act no further proceedings could be taken in pursuance of the order of 21st May, 1968, because that order had been appealed against. Page 19 of 23 "Counsel for the parties present. Demarcation has been effected on the spot. Partition has been effected according to the plan. Now, naqshajeem be obtained for 4.6.1968." On the 17th June, 1968, order Exhibit D.12 was passed which that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the order dated 21st May, 1968, had expired and, therefore, instrument of partition is prepared and will take effect from Rabi 1968. It is thus obvious that by June, 1968, the joint status arties had been severed and, therefore, the plaintiff -sharer before the trial Court's decree which was passed on 31st July, 1968. The trial Court, in view of these facts, could not proceed to decree the larly in view of the decision of the Full Ramji Lal and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 Current Law Journal 276, wherein it emptor has to maintain his preferential right not only at the date of the suit or during the course of the litigation but also at the date of the trial Court's decree. In the instant case the relationship as co-sharers had come to an end before the decree was passed and, therefore, emption could not be decreed. This is the view that the learned Single Judge has taken. The Courts below which dealt with the suit took the view that the relationship as sharers had not ceased by the time the trial Court passed Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of Section 118 of Land Revenue Act no further proceedings could be taken in pursuance of the order of 21st May, 1968, because that order had been appealed against. 23 "Counsel for the parties present. Demarcation has been effected on the spot. Partition has been effected according to On the 17th June, 1968, order Exhibit D.12 was passed which that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the order dated 21st May, 1968, had expired and, therefore, instrument of partition is prepared and will take effect from Rabi 1968. It is thus obvious that by June, 1968, the joint status arties had been severed and, therefore, the plaintiff sharer before the trial Court's decree which was passed on 31st July, 1968. The trial Court, in view of these facts, could not proceed to decree the larly in view of the decision of the Full Ramji Lal and another v. The State of , wherein it emptor has to maintain his f the suit or during the course of the litigation but also at the date of the trial Court's sharers had come to an end before the decree was passed and, therefore, reed. This is the view that the learned Single Judge has taken. The Courts below which dealt with the suit took the view that the relationship as sharers had not ceased by the time the trial Court passed Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of Section 118 of Land Revenue Act no further proceedings could be taken in pursuance of the order of 21st May, 1968, because that order had been appealed against. SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 25. plaintiffs can derive no benefit from the Supra and Pritam Singh Supra Hon’ble Apex Court in case of 26. Ramji Lal Supra, R Supra), to the effect decree and at that time the plaintiffs were co According to him, the instrument of partition (Exhibit D.12) could not be prepared. It is not necessary for us to go into this matter because we are of the opinion that the order dated 21st May, 1968, put an end to the joint relationship. That order was appealed against and that appeal failed; or, to put it more accurately, was not pressed. Therefore, the order dated 21st May, 1968, remained alive and whatever has happened in pursuance of it cannot be just wiped out. Faced with this situation, Mr. Jain took recourse to the doctrine according to him the order of 21st May, with the order of the appellate Court dismissing the appeal. It is in this situation, that the learned counsel contends that the date when the appellate order was passed being beyond date of the trial Court's decree, there was no severance of status and the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for pre-emption. We are unable to agree with this contention. The doctrine of merger is of a very limited application and does no apply to all proceedings…” In view of the above stated can derive no benefit from the relied Pritam Singh Supra as, needless to say, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jhabbar Singh Su Argument of the plaintiffs Ramji Lal Supra, Rikhi Ram Supra, Didar Singh Su to the effect that status of the parties has to be seen at the time of decree and at that time the plaintiffs were co trument of partition (Exhibit D.12) could not be prepared. It is not necessary for us to go into this matter because we are of the opinion that the order dated 21st May, 1968, put an end to the joint relationship. That order was ppeal failed; or, to put it more accurately, was not pressed. Therefore, the order dated 21st May, 1968, remained alive and whatever has happened in pursuance of it cannot be just wiped out. Faced with this situation, Mr. Jain took recourse to the doctrine of merger and to him the order of 21st May, 1968, would merge with the order of the appellate Court dismissing the appeal. It is in this situation, that the learned counsel contends that the date when the appellate order was passed being beyond the date of the trial Court's decree, there was no severance of status and the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for emption. We are unable to agree with this contention. The doctrine of merger is of a very limited application and does not above stated undisputed position in law, relied-on judgments in Khem Dutt needless to say, recent judgment of the Singh Supra would have primacy. of the plaintiffs (on the basis of judgments in dar Singh Supra, and Jinda Ram status of the parties has to be seen at the time of decree and at that time the plaintiffs were co-sharers in the suit land 23 trument of partition (Exhibit D.12) could not be prepared. It is not necessary for us to go into this matter because we are of the opinion that the order dated 21st May, 1968, put an end to the joint relationship. That order was ppeal failed; or, to put it more accurately, was not pressed. Therefore, the order dated 21st May, 1968, remained alive and whatever has happened in pursuance of it cannot be just wiped out. Faced with this of merger and 1968, would merge with the order of the appellate Court dismissing the appeal. It is in this situation, that the learned counsel contends that the the date of the trial Court's decree, there was no severance of status and the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for emption. We are unable to agree with this contention. The t undisputed position in law, Khem Dutt judgment of the on the basis of judgments in Ram status of the parties has to be seen at the time of suit land SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document because the instrument of partition had not been prepared misconceived co-sharer-ship 27. paragraph 7 of its judg dated 5.12.1991, (Ex.D-1) dated the 24 evidence after seeking permission of the Co order of the l sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector 2nd final instrument of partition had also been prepared by the learned Assistant Collector on before the learned lower Appellate Court, as additional evidence. facts and evidence the ld. First Appellate Court. 28. that in view of and P-8 lost all thei gravely erred in not following the ratio of “Jaskaur Singh Vs. Ranbir Si 1991-PLJ-115 by the Court. because the instrument of partition had not been prepared misconceived in view of above recorded position in law ship takes place on date of passing of The learned lower Appellate paragraph 7 of its judgment that the copy of the order of the Collector 5.12.1991, against the order of the learned 1) dated the 24.7.1991, has been produced by ter seeking permission of the Co order of the ld. Collector dated 5.12.1991, upholding the mode of partition sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector 2nd final instrument of partition had also been prepared by the learned Assistant Collector on 3.1.1992, and a copy of that had also been produced efore the learned lower Appellate Court, as additional evidence. facts and evidence were not appreciated in the correct legal perspective, First Appellate Court. The ld. First Appellate Court ought to have appreciated in view of the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Collector, Ex 8 lost all their weight. Thus, the learned lo gravely erred in not following the ratio of a binding decision of this “Jaskaur Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 50564 115, holding that the supervening facts have to be taken note of ourt. Page 21 of 23 because the instrument of partition had not been prepared, is also patently position in law that severance of takes place on date of passing of Naksha Be. learned lower Appellate Court has noticed in ment that the copy of the order of the Collector against the order of the learned Assistant Collector - produced by way of additional ter seeking permission of the Court; and that in view of the 1991, upholding the mode of partition sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector 2nd grade vide Ex. D-1, the final instrument of partition had also been prepared by the learned and a copy of that had also been produced efore the learned lower Appellate Court, as additional evidence. Yet, these in the correct legal perspective, by The ld. First Appellate Court ought to have appreciated dismissal of the appeal by the learned Collector, Ex. P-7 learned lower Appellate Court has a binding decision of this Court in ngh & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 50564; that the supervening facts have to be taken note of 23 is also patently that severance of iced in ment that the copy of the order of the Collector - way of additional and that in view of the 1991, upholding the mode of partition the final instrument of partition had also been prepared by the learned and a copy of that had also been produced , these by The ld. First Appellate Court ought to have appreciated 7 ourt has Court in ; that the supervening facts have to be taken note of SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 29. noted, unequivocal position in law, documents on record, that partition had already taken place between the parties, decree of the trial C for the year 1987 not recorded as co sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector on the 24 brought to an end the status of the parties and decided their i rights, as well as the question of title of the respe Court in Lala Ram supra partition is a mere fo right to object of partition has been sanctioned. The mode of partition determines the rights of the parties finally put an end to the status of the plaintiff The mere fact that the appeal was filed against the order Ex sufficient to take away the force of the judicial decision dated the 24.7.1991, particularly when the appeal has finally been dismissed by the order dated prepared in accordance with the order dated the 24 In any event, in the present case, in view of the above noted, unequivocal position in law, even on the basis of th on record, it is clear that the plai that partition had already taken place between the parties, decree of the trial Court passed on the 30.8. the year 1987-88 (Ex. P-2) relating to the land in dispute, the parties are not recorded as co-sharers. Moreover, the mode of partition had been sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector on the 24 brought to an end the status of the parties and decided their i rights, as well as the question of title of the respe Lala Ram supra has held that the prepara partition is a mere formality and none of the parties to the partition have a right to object to the preparation of the instrument of partition, once mode of partition has been sanctioned. The mode of partition determines the rights of the parties. Therefore, the order Ex finally put an end to the status of the plaintiff he mere fact that the appeal was filed against the order Ex to take away the force of the judicial decision dated the 1991, particularly when the appeal has finally been dismissed by the order dated the 5.12.1991 and the instrument of partition has been prepared in accordance with the order dated the 24 In any event, in the present case, in view of the above even on the basis of the original it is clear that the plaintiffs are not co-sharer and that partition had already taken place between the parties, before the .8.1991. Even in the Jamabandi 2) relating to the land in dispute, the parties are sharers. Moreover, the mode of partition had been sanctioned by the learned Assistant Collector on the 24.7.1991, which brought to an end the status of the parties and decided their individual rights, as well as the question of title of the respective parties. Even this the preparation of the instrument of mality and none of the parties to the partition have a to the preparation of the instrument of partition, once mode of partition has been sanctioned. The mode of partition determines the re, the order Ex.D-1 dated 24.7.1991 had finally put an end to the status of the plaintiff as co-sharer in Rect. No. 180. he mere fact that the appeal was filed against the order Ex. D-1 is not to take away the force of the judicial decision dated the 1991, particularly when the appeal has finally been dismissed by the 1991 and the instrument of partition has been prepared in accordance with the order dated the 24.7.1991. 23 In any event, in the present case, in view of the above original rer and before the Jamabandi 2) relating to the land in dispute, the parties are sharers. Moreover, the mode of partition had been 1991, which ndividual this ion of the instrument of mality and none of the parties to the partition have a to the preparation of the instrument of partition, once mode of partition has been sanctioned. The mode of partition determines the 1991 had sharer in Rect. No. 180. 1 is not to take away the force of the judicial decision dated the 1991, particularly when the appeal has finally been dismissed by the 1991 and the instrument of partition has been SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 30. to improve his the learned trial C partition, which has resulted in the order (Ex 1.9.1989, whereas the suit for pre 2.2.1990. In any case the right of the facts and circumstances of the present case the suit of the plaintiff did not deserve to be decreed. 31. allowed. Resultantly, the courts below are set aside. 32. 22.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Moreover, in the pre-emption mprove his status during the pendency of the suit, before t the learned trial Court. However, in the present partition, which has resulted in the order (Ex 1989, whereas the suit for pre-emption has been filed n any case the right of pre-emptor is a piratical rights and circumstances of the present case the suit of the plaintiff did not deserve to be decreed. In view of the above discussion Resultantly, the impugned judgements courts below are set aside. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No emption suit the vendee is entitled the pendency of the suit, before the decree of ourt. However, in the present case, the application for partition, which has resulted in the order (Ex.D-1), had been filed on mption has been filed thereafter on emptor is a piratical rights. Thus, in and circumstances of the present case the suit of the plaintiff did discussion, the present appeal is impugned judgements and decrees of the learned Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 23 suit the vendee is entitled he decree of the application for been filed on on in and circumstances of the present case the suit of the plaintiff did present appeal is and decrees of the learned SUNENA 2025.06.03 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document