RSA No.3247 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3247 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.2.2010 Mukesh Kumar ......Appellant(s) Versus Lal Chand & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.9076-C of 2007 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 22 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.9077-C of 2007 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3247 of 2007 (O&M) This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the suit property by way of pre-emption, having the superior right being co-sharers, was decreed. Briefly stated, the appellant purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.6.1990 from one Sh. Jag Ram-respondent No.4, the original owner of the land in dispute. In the aforesaid sale deed, the aforesaid land was described as agricultural land. Even in the agreement to sell, it was described as such. The plaintiff-respondents filed suit for RSA No.3247 of 2007 (O&M) 2 pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers in the said land and had a superior right to pre-empt the same. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.1993. The First Appellate Court set aside the aforesaid decree and dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 3.4.1996. However, the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to it by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2006 passed in regular second appeal. The Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.2.2007 upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Still not satisfied, the defendant-appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondents had a superior right of pre-emption being co-sharers. The grievance raised before this Court by the defendant-appellant is that the land in dispute being 'Abadi' was not pre-emptable. Elaborating further the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the land in dispute is residential one and is surrounded by houses and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “Agricultural Land”. Thus, the findings to the contrary are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Whether the land in question was agricultural land or Abadi is essentially a question of fact. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the land in question is agriculture land and therefore, was pre-emptable. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the findings so recorded could be challenged. Moreover, no RSA No.3247 of 2007 (O&M) 3 such plea was raised by the appellant in his pleadings. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. February 3, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE