Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Pre-emption Suit After Partition; Holds Co-sharer Status Ends Once Naksha ‘Be’ Is Finalised

Case Name: Suraj Bhan and Others v. Niadri Devi (Deceased) through LRs

Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026

Citation: RSA-2403-1993

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and dismissed the suit for pre-emption, holding that once partition proceedings culminate in finalisation of Naksha ‘Be’ and the partition order attains finality, the relationship of co-sharers stands severed. The Court further held that a pre-emptor must strictly prove non-service of statutory notice under Sections 19 and 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and failure to do so is fatal to the suit.

Summary: The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit claiming a right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land sold by Tek Chand and Shankar Dass to the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 06.11.1987. The plaintiff asserted preferential rights on the basis of being a co-sharer and tenant and challenged the sale consideration as inflated.

The appellants resisted the suit contending that the joint khewat had already been partitioned prior to the sale, that the plaintiff had ceased to be a co-sharer, and that the statutory requirements under Sections 19 and 20 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act had not been complied with. It was also contended that the vendors were deliberately given up as parties and no evidence was led to prove absence of statutory notice.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit. In second appeal, the High Court undertook an extensive examination of partition law, statutory provisions of the Pre-emption Act, and binding precedents.

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh to hold that partition stands completed once the Revenue Officer finalises the Naksha ‘Be’ and decides the mode of partition, and the subsequent preparation of the instrument of partition is merely ministerial. In the present case, the partition order had attained finality, mutation was sanctioned, and the Jamabandi reflected the partition prior to the impugned sale, thereby severing the co-sharer relationship.

The Court further held that the burden to prove non-service of notice under Section 19 lies squarely on the pre-emptor. Apart from bald pleadings, the plaintiff led no oral or documentary evidence and even gave up the vendors during trial. The absence of proof regarding statutory notice rendered the pre-emption claim unsustainable.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.