1974 (8) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court dismissing the pre-emption suit of the appellant by reversing the concurrent Judgment of the trial court and the 1st Appellate court. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased on 10-5-55 the share of Khotu and Chandu Ram in Khewat 2, Khata 26 to 44 and 6 bigas and 7 biswas in Khewat No. 3 Khatas 49 to 54 comprising in all an area of 213 bigas and 14 biswas. On 16-4-57 respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were co-sharers with the vendors in the land sold to respondents 1-6. At this stage, we may mention that before the decree was passed by the trial court, the appellants had sold their co-sharers' right in Khewat No. 2, Khatas Nos. 26-44 and Khewat 3 Khatas 49-54. It was their case that after the sale this deal had co-ownership rights in 6 bighas and 7 biswas and consequently they were entitled....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffective but up to the date of the decree. Though it was not disputed that the plaintiffs were co-sharers in the aforesaid khatas of khewats nos. 2 and 3, what was contested was that after the transfer of practically the entire area on that date the plaintiffs ceased to be co-sharers who could pre-empt the sale relating to 926 bigas in khewats 2 and 3 because it was nowhere proved in which khata o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and dismissed the suit. Some argument seems to have been advanced in the High Court based on the definition of holdings in Section 3(3) as meaning a share or portion of an estate held by one owner or jointly by two or more land owners. On this basis it was contended that the appellants being owners of the land which held the estate they must be regarded as co-sharers in the land in dispute. The Hi....