RSA No. 1546 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1546 of 2007. Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 *** Gurdeep Singh .. Appellant VS. Mange Ram & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Kamalpreet Bajwa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of 1/3rd share in the land measuring 48 kanal 05 marlas on payment of Rs.85,000/-. It was their case that initially their predecessor-in-interest Shera along with Sheo Karan and Maru were tenants over the said land to the extent of 1/3rd share each. However, in order to defeat their pre-emptory rights the vendor sold the land to defendant Gurdeep Singh through registered sale-deed dated 13.6.1997, which according to them was a sham transaction. On the other hand the case of the defendant was that he purchased 2/3rd rights in the suit property and hence become the co-sharer in the same and, therefore, the plaintiffs were having no superior rights than him over the suit land. The defendant also took the stand that he purchased the suit land for a sum of Rs.1,01,000/-. The learned trial Court decreed the suit, set aside the sale deed in favour of the defendant and ordered for pre-emption in respect of 1/3rd share in the suit land in their favour on payment of Rs.85000/-. However, on an appeal, the learned appellate Court below held that the sale consideration of Rs.1,01,000/- took place and the findings of the learned trial Court qua RSA No. 1546 of 2007 2 setting aside of the sale deed were set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court were modified and accordingly the appeal was partly allowed. Dis-satisfied with the same the defendant has come up in this regular second appeal. Heard. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned judgments that both the Courts below, on the basis of evidence adduced on record, concurrently held the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share as tenant and concluded that they have superior right over the suit land than the defendant to pre-empt the same under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and while relying upon the amount mentioned in the sale-deed, the learned appellate Court directed the plaintiffs to pay the same to the defendant and then to get the land pre- empted in their favour. Even during course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the suit in respect of remaining 2/3rd share filed by respondents Mange Ram and others was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appellant Gurdeep Singh, in that suit, was also found not to be co-tenant over the suit land and such findings were upheld by the learned appellate Court below as well as by this Court in RSA No.267 of 1992, titled as Gurdeep Singh Vs. Mange Ram, decided on 10.3.2010. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant regular second appeal and no substantial question of law arises for consideration therein. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 20,2011 Jiten