Pre-emption by co-sharer status fails when continuing co-ownership is not proved up to the decree.

A claim to pre-emption based on co-sharership under Section 15(b) fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act fails unless the claimant proves that co-sharer status subsisted until the decree. The Court found that the appellants did not produce the registered sale deed showing divestment of their rights, nor reliable proof that the remaining land formed part of the relevant khewats. Oral evidence was therefore insufficient, and an adverse inference was drawn from the withheld best evidence. The appellants accordingly failed to establish the statutory basis for preference, and the claim was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants established a superior right of pre-emption as co-sharers subsisting up to the date of the decree.

Analysis: The right of pre-emption under Section 15(b) fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act required the plaintiffs to show that they were the other co-sharers in the joint land and that this status continued until the decree. The crucial question was whether, after transferring their co-ownership rights, the appellants still retained any identifiable co-sharership in the land sold to the vendees. The best evidence on this point was the registered sale deed by which they had divested their rights, but they did not produce it. In the absence of that document, and with no reliable proof that the alleged remaining 6 bighas and 7 biswas pertained to the relevant khewats, the Court held that oral evidence could not establish the appellants' continuing status as co-sharers. An adverse inference was therefore justified against them.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to prove that they had the requisite subsisting co-sharership to claim pre-emption, and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: A pre-emptor must establish the statutory basis for preference and show that the right continues until the decree; failure to prove continued co-sharership defeats the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of pre-emption based on co-sharership fails unless the claimant proves, by reliable evidence, that the co-sharer status continued up to the date of decree; where the best documentary evidence is withheld, an adverse inference may be drawn.

---