Lakhmi Chand vs Gopal Krishan

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-181-1995
Reserved on : 21.07.2026
Pronounced on : 14.09.2026
LAKHMI CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS
...Appellants
Versus
GOPAL KRISHAN AND ORS ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate
Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocate
for the appellants.
Respondents proceeded ex parte
vide order dated 16.01.2026.
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
Present regular second appeal has been preferred by
appellants/defendants being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated
06.09.1994, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Karnal whereby suit for
possession by way of pre-emption preferred by respondents/plaintiffs was
decreed and by judgment and decree dated 23.01.1995, passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Karnal vide which first appeal preferred by
appellants/defendants was dismissed.
2. In their suit for possession by way of pre-emption,
respondents/plaintiffs had claimed that defendant No.1-Narain Lal had sold
his agricultural land to appellants/defendants No.2 to 7, measuring 49 kanals
5 marlas being his 1/5th share in total agricultural land measuring 246 kanals
5 marlas comprised in land fully described in the plaint, situated in Village
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-181-1995 -2-
Salarpura, Tehsil and District Karnal. It was asserted that suit land was sold
for fictitious consideration of Rs.9,23,437.50/- by way of registered sale
deed dated 13.03.1992, however, actual consideration was Rs.2,73,437.50/-.
That inflated consideration was shown in sale deed to scare away intending
pre-emptors. It was asserted that no notice of said sale was given by
appellant/defendant No.1 to respondents/plaintiffs. Respondents/plaintiffs
claimed right of pre-emption being co-sharer in the joint land and
accordingly, sought possession by way of pre-emption.
3. Upon notice, defendant No.1-Narain Lal had not contested the
suit. Suit was contested only by subsequent vendees i.e.
appellants/defendants No.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. All the appellants/defendants in
their respective written statements had taken preliminary objections as
regards to maintainability etc. It was claimed that suit was neither filed
within the limitation period nor 1/5th pre-emption amount had been
deposited and that respondents/plaintiffs had got no right to seek pre-
emption. That the sale consideration was stated to be correct consideration.
It was claimed that it was appellants/defendants who had levelled the suit
land and had installed tubewell after spending Rs.23,000/-. It was also
claimed that suit land stood partitioned in the year 1989 and
respondents/plaintiffs were well aware of the same. Accordingly, dismissal
of suit was prayed for.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed,
however, subsequently on 07.09.1993 and 05.01.1994 additional issues were
also framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the joint holding of
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-181-1995 -3-
which the suit land forms a part and as such they have got a
superior right of pre-emption? OPP
2. Whether the entire sale consideration of Rs.9,23,437.50 was
actually paid by the defendant-vendees to Narain Lal defendant
No.1 or the same was fixed in good faith? OPD
3. If issue No.2 is not proved what was the market value of the suit
land at the time of sale? OPP
4. Whether the expenses of the execution and registration of the
sale deed were incurred by the vendee-defendant, if so, to what
amount? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present
suit? OPD
7. Relief.
Additional issue framed on 07.09.1993 :-
1. Whether the suit is bad for partial pre-emption as averred in
para No.3 of the preliminary objection in the written statement?
OPD2.
Additional issue framed on 05.01.1994 :-
1. Whether vendee-defendants are entitled for Rs.23,000/- said to
have been spent on reclamation of the suit land? OPD.
5. Learned Trial Court had decided issue No.1 in favour of
respondents/plaintiffs. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of
appellants/defendants No.2 to 7 holding that sale was made for consideration
mentioned in sale deed amounting to Rs.9,23,437.50. Issues No.3 and 4
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-181-1995 -4-
were decided in favour of appellants/defendants No.2 to 7. Issues No.5 and 6
were decided in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and against
appellants/defendants. Additional issues framed on 07.02.1993 and
05.01.1994 were decided in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and against
appellants/defendants and accordingly, suit was decreed. Learned Appellate
Court had concurred with the findings given by learned Court of first
instance.
6. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have duly
concluded that on the day of sale i.e. 13.03.1992 and on date of passing of
decree, respondents/plaintiffs were co-sharers with defendant No.1 and right
of pre-emption existed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and therefore,
respondents/plaintiffs are within their rights to seek pre-emption of sale deed
dated 13.03.1992 for the sale consideration stated in the sale deed.
7. In the present case, defendant No.1 had not contested the suit
and therefore, there is no pleading or evidence that defendant No.1 had ever
given any notice of sale to the respondents/plaintiffs prior to execution of
sale deed dated 13.03.1992. Though appellants/defendants No.2 to 7 had
claimed that respondents/plaintiffs always knew about execution of sale and
execution of sale deed and suit land was partitioned in year 1989.
8. It is asserted that possession of specific killa numbers was
handed over by defendant No.1 to appellants/defendants on execution of sale
deed which duly proves partition between the co-sharer.
9. However, on consideration of pleadings, evidence and
conclusion drawn by learned Courts below, I find no merit in the contentions
raised on behalf of appellants/defendants. Except for self-serving oral
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-181-1995 -5-
statements that respondents/plaintiffs had knowledge of sale and that suit
land was partitioned in year 1989, no substantive material to prove these
facts, has been placed on record by appellants/defendants. No notice or facts
and circumstances from which it can be concluded that
respondents/plaintiffs had notice of sale is available on record. Mere self-
serving oral statements in absence of any substantive corroborative evidence
cannot be relied upon. Simply, it has been mentioned that suit property was
partitioned in year 1989 without disclosing exact date of alleged partition.
The partition cannot be held to be proved. Moreover, the oral assertions are
belied by revenue records. In jamabandi for year 1986-87 Ex.P1, suit land
has been shown to be joint land and no subsequent jamabandi after year
1989 or any other revenue records showing that parties had partitioned the
suit land was adduced by appellants/defendants in evidence. Therefore, the
oral assertions are totally rebutted by revenue records. Moreover, in the
present case, even as per appellans own case, suit land was joint, prior to
year 1989 as they have claimed partition in year 1989. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon them to prove partition in year 1989 which
appellants/defendants have failed to prove by leading any cogent and
reliable evidence.
10. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants that in sale deed, specific khasra numbers were sold
and possession of specific khasra numbers was handed over to
appellants/defendants, therefore, this goes to prove partition of suit property
is without any merit.
11. Unless partition is proved by way of metes and bounds, the
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-181-1995 -6-
property remains the joint. Jointness of property will not be distributed
merely by sale of specific khasra number. A co-sharer has no right to sell
specific portion of joint land and can sell only land to the extent of his share.
Unilateral sale of any specific number would not denote either partition or
would bind co-sharers by said sale. Such sale deed has to be taken to be sale
of share by co-sharer and not of particular land. Similarly, possession over a
specific killa number by itself does not denote partition. Specific/exclusive
possession of co-sharer remains joint and is always subject to partition. It is
mere arrangement to manage the joint land between the co-sharers, but has
got no legal effect on the rights of co-sharer which is subject to partition by
metes and bounds. Therefore, in the present case, by making assertions in
sale deed that sale is being made qua specific khasra number or by passing
possession of specific khasra number would not be led to the conclusion of
partition as is being claimed by appellants/defendants. Partition has to be
proved specifically by metes and bounds which appellants/defendants have
failed to prove. Therefore, in the present case, respondents/plaintiffs being
co-sharers had a superior right of pre-empting sale which they have sought
to exercise by way of suit for pre-emption.
12. In view of above discussion, the conclusion drawn by learned
Courts below that suit land was joint land and sale by defendant No.1 can be
rightly pre-empted by co-sharers of joint land i.e. respondents/plaintiffs is
upheld.
13. I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The concurrent
finding of fact recorded by learned Courts below is in accordance with law
and accordingly, upheld. No substantial question of law arises in present
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-181-1995 -7-
appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
14.09.2026 JUDGE
Chiranjeev/Ravinder
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.09.14 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document