RSA No.2634 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2634 of 1987 Date of Decision: 18.3.2010 Smt. Gomati ...Appellant Versus Lal Singh and others .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This is the second appeal filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1987 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit for possession by pre-emption and judgment and decree dated 16.5.1987 passed by the First Appellate Court/District Judge, Gurgaon thereby confirming the judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by the trial Court was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the present case as per the plaint inter alia are Smt. Shanti and Smt. Sheela were daughters of Smt. Revti, who were the owners of the suit land and sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 for Rs.35,000/- along with rights pertaining thereto; RSA No.2634 of 1987 2 sale was arranged secretly and no notice of the same was given to the plaintiff as required by law; plaintiff is the co-owner and has a preferential right of pre-emption, hence suit. 3. Defendants contested the suit. Defendant No.1-vendee also stated that he was also co-sharer and still continues to be in possession of the suit land and plaintiff has no superior right of pre- emption to that of the vendee-defendant. 4. Learned trial Court recorded findings of fact that vendee is also co-sharer and thus was entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour. Plaintiff despite of being another co-sharer has no preferential right of pre-emption over and above vendee-defendant No.1. 5. Plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit took the matter before the First Appellate Court. Learned District Judge, Gurgaon confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court that vendee was co-sharer in the same Khewat number, hence, rightly purchased the property and plaintiff although another co-sharer has no preferential right of pre-emption against the another co-sharer who has purchased the land. Having confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court, First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The judgment passed by both the Courts below are assailed in the second appeal. 6. This Court while exercising power jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC has very limited jurisdiction. This Court is not supposed to interfere in the well reasoned findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Judgments passed by the Courts below can only be disturbed if, any substantial question of law arises for fair and just adjudication of the matter. Simply because two views can be taken on the basis of material/evidence available on record, jurisdiction of this Court under RSA No.2634 of 1987 3 Section 100 CPC cannot be invoked. 7. Both the Courts below placed reliance on judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the matter Bhartu Versus Ram Sarup reported in 1981 PLJ 204. Full Bench of this Court has laid down that if a person purchases portion of the land described of particular Khasra number from the co-owner out of the joint Khewat then purchaser becomes co- owner in the Khewat. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly stated that judgments of Full Bench in the matter of Bhartu (supra) is still covers the field. In view of the above I find no illegality in the findings of both the Courts below that vendee prior to the sale deed in question had purchased land from the other co-sharer and had become co-sharer in the land in dispute, hence has rightly purchased through sale deed in question. Appeal lacks merit, hence, dismissed. No cost. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 18.3.2010 sharmila