RSA No.1953 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.5826-C of 2008 & RSA No.1953 of 2008 Decided on : 19.01.2010 Om Parkash & another ... Appellants versus Lala Devi Dayal Bhoo Sewa Trust & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.5826-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 6 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.1953 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for preemption of the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly RSA No.1953 of 2008 -2- stated that originally the entire land had been leased out in the year 1964 to five persons i.e. 1/4th share to Mulakh Raj, 1/4th share to Som Nath and half to appellant No.1 and two other persons. All these five persons had filed the instant suit for preemption. However, the Courts below found that all the above said persons except appellant No.1 had admittedly parted with whatever share they have of the land in dispute and thus, dismissed the suit for preemption. The ld. Lower Appellate Court also affirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit and further held that even if the appellant No.1 had not handed over possession or alienated his share yet the suit would be bad for partial preemption. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of misreading of evidence? ii) That in case out of several plaintiffs, some of them part away with possession of land during pendency of suit, then in that case whether the suit qua remaining plaintiffs can be termed to be a suit for partial preemption? The only question which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is question No.(ii). Once it is established that appellant No.1 was joint tenant along with other persons and in view of the fact that the sale transaction is one and only 1/6th of the sale is sought to be preempted it cannot be denied that the suit is a suit for partial preemption. Question RSA No.1953 of 2008 -3- No.(i) is a general question, which needs not to be answered. Holding the proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. January 19, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE