Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeet Pal vs Hari Singh on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062570
RSA No.1683 of 1992 2024:PHHC:062570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
RSA No.1683 of 1992
Reserved on:29.04.2024
Pronounced on: 06.05.2024
Jeet Pal Singh .....Appellant
Vs.
Hari Singh and others .....Respondents
****
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. K.S. Panwar, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This is plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against concurrent
findings of the Courts below, whereby his suit seeking decree for possession
of the suit property by way of pre-emption, has been dismissed.
2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order
to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the
learned trial Court.
3. By way of sale deed dated 20.12.1984 (Ex.D1), defendant No.1
- Ram Kanwar (not a party to this appeal) sold his 3/32 share of the land
measuring 6 kanal 4 marlas comprised in Khewat No.486, Khatauni No.565,
Rectangle and Killa No.87/26, situated in Village Tankari, Tehsil Bawal,
District Mahendergarh, in favour of defendant No.2 - Hari Singh (now
respondent No.1 through his LRs) for consideration of ₹3,000/-. Claiming to
be co-sharer in the same Khewat, plaintiffs Jeet Pal Singh etc., (now
appellant and proforma respondents No.2 to 5) sought to pre-empt the said
sale.
Page No.1 out of 4 pages
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062570
RSA No.1683 of 1992 2024:PHHC:062570
4. Defendant No.1 - vendor did not contest the suit and was
proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.2 - Hari Singh in his written statement
took the stand that he was already owner of the Well situated in the suit
property along with the rights of irrigation, having purchased the same vide
registered sale deed dated 15.05.1978 (Ex.D2), against which plaintiff had
earlier filed a suit for pre-emption, which was dismissed. He pleaded that in
the previous sale deed, the name of the Well was described as 'Dharawala'
but as specific number of the land was not mentioned, so the sale deed dated
20.12.1984 was executed giving the description of the share and number of
the Well. Said defendant No.2 - vendee denied the plaintiffs right to per-
empt the sale.
5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the
parties was taken on record. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial
Court found that though the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the Well but could
not pre-empt share in the Well independently of the land. As such, the suit
was dismissed on 25.04.1989.
6. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the First
Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari on 30.04.1992.
7. The only issue to be considered, in this appeal, is as to whether
the plaintiff- appellant had the right to pre-empt the sale deed dated
20.12.1984.
8. Since, respondent were proceed ex-parte before this court, so,
learned counsel for appellant has been heard and record has been perused.
9. It has been noticed by the First Appellate Court that by virtue of
the sale deed dated 15.05.1978 (Ex.D2), defendant - Hari Singh had
purchased 12 kanal 04 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No.384,
Khatauni No.462, Rectangle No.87, Khasra No.22(4-8); and Rectangle
Page No.2 out of 4 pages
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062570
RSA No.1683 of 1992 2024:PHHC:062570
No.93, Khasra No.2 (7-16); besides rights of irrigation and "Naal Chah
Dharawala". Plaintiffs had sought to pre-empt the said sale deed dated
15.05.1978 by filing Civil Suit No.252 of 1979, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 29.09.1980 (Ex.D3), after observing that plaintiff was not a
co-sharer in the same Khewat (N: 384), in which the sold land was
comprised; and rather, he was a co-sharer only in the land of the Well. It
was further held that right to the Well is appurtenant to the land, which is
irrigated by the Well and that these rights cannot be separated from the land
sold and cannot be allowed to be pre-empted. It was further found by the
Appellate Court that new sale deed dated 20.12.1984 (Ex.D1) was in fact
regarding the share in the Well by describing the Khasra Number thereof,
which is mere explanation of the earlier sale and, therefore, it was not pre-
emptable. After holding so, the finding of the trial Court was upheld.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the
plaintiff is a co-sharer in the land, in which the Well is situated i.e. Khewat
No.486, therefore, he is entitled to pre-empt the sale. This Court does not
find any merit in the contention. Defendant No.2 - Hari Singh had already
purchased the share of vendor- Ram Kanwar in the Well by virtue of sale
deed dated 15.05.1978 (Ex.D2) along with 12 kanal 04 marls of land
comprised in Khewat No.384 Khatauni No.462. Only thing is that in that
sale deed, the Khasra number of Well was not specifically mentioned and
thus, the sale deed dated 20.12.1984 (Ex.D1), sought to be pre-empted, is
only the explanation of the earlier sale. It is not the case of plaintiff-
appellant that "Naal Chah Dharawala", the share of which was purchased
by defendant No.2 by way of sale deed dated 15.05.1978, is different than
the share as purchased by the defendant No.2 by way of sale deed dated
20.12.1984 (Ex.D1).
Page No.3 out of 4 pages
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062570
RSA No.1683 of 1992 2024:PHHC:062570
11 In view of the afore-said discussion, this Court does find any
illegality in the concurrent findings of the Courts below, declining the prayer
of the plaintiffs so as to pre-empt the sale in question.
12. In "P. Chandrasekharan and Others vs S. Kanakarajan &
Others"2007(3) RCR(Civil) 543, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that though as a general rule, High Court will not interfere with the
concurrent findings of the Courts below, but it is not an absolute rule. Some
of the well recognised exceptions are where:
(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no
evidence;
(ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by
applying the law erroneously; or
(iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof.
13. In the present case, this Court does not find any of the
exceptions mentioned above to be applicable in the findings of fact given
concurrently by the Courts below.
14. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit,
the same is hereby dismissed.
May 06, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Page No.4 out of 4 pages
4 of 4
