Punjab & Haryana HC: Right of Pre-Emption Held Weak and Piratical, Suits by Co-Sharers Dismissed as Vendees Already Became Co-Owners Before Filing

Case Name: Dhan Raj & Ors. v. Om Parkash & Ors. (connected with RSA No. 2061 of 1993)
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025
Citation: RSA No. 2060 of 1993 & RSA No. 2061 of 1993 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The High Court allowed both Regular Second Appeals and set aside the first appellate court’s decree which had upheld the plaintiffs’ right of pre-emption. It held that the defendants-appellants had already become co-sharers in the same khewat by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 21.07.1989 and 16.08.1989, executed prior to the institution of the suits on 31.05.1990. Under Section 21A of the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913, improvements in the status of a vendee before filing of the suit defeat the pre-emptor’s claim. The Court reiterated that the right of pre-emption is a statutory but weak and piratical right, always subordinate to the rights of a vendee who lawfully acquires title.

Summary: Plaintiffs Om Parkash and others, co-sharers by virtue of a 1983 sale deed, filed two separate suits in 1990 seeking to pre-empt sales of land measuring 40 kanal 5 marla and 26 kanal 17 marla executed in 1989 by other co-sharers in favour of Dhan Raj and others. The trial court dismissed both suits, holding plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption. The first appellate court reversed, declaring plaintiffs entitled to pre-empt the sales. On second appeal, the defendants argued that by the time of filing the suits, they were already co-sharers due to prior purchases, and hence no superior right of pre-emption survived with the plaintiffs. The High Court agreed, noting that Section 21A bars improvements pendente lite, but here the improvements pre-dated the suits. Relying on Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh (AIR 1958 SC 838), Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), and later rulings in Raghunath v. Radha Mohan (2020) and Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh (2023), the Court reiterated that pre-emption is a disliked, restrictive right, valid only till repealed, and subject to lawful defeat. It also highlighted that Punjab repealed pre-emption in 1973, Delhi and Chandigarh in 1989, and Haryana in 1995, showing a consistent legislative trend to discourage its expansion.

Decision: The High Court allowed both appeals, restored the trial court’s dismissal of the pre-emption suits, and held that the plaintiffs had no subsisting right of pre-emption as the appellants had already attained co-sharer status before the suits were filed.