JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge. Sirohi dated 16.9.83, dismissing the appellant's suit for preemption. 2. The facts of the case are, that on 5.11.77, the appellant filed a suit for preemption, alleging inter-alia, that he is the son of defendant No. 2, and that he owns a house marked by figure "A B C D E F G H" in the site plan, annexed with the plaint, which house he received from his deceased father in the Samvat year 2019, and vide document dated 1.7.70, he released all his rights in all other properties of his father. It was then alleged, that the defendant No. 1 purchased the 'plot house', mentioned In pare 4 of the plaint, from the defendant No. 2 on 25.11.76 vide registered sale deed for a price of Rs. 15,000/-, the boundaries of the 'plot house' have been given in pare 4 of the plaint. Then it was alleged that the entire property, i.e. the house of the plaintiff, and 'house plot' sold on 25.11.76, were covered by two Pattas dated 9.9.22 and 1.4.45, and thus, the property was joint, and the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property, with the result, that the defendant No. 2 had no right to sell the property to anybody else. It was also alleged that the property has been sold without notice to the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave a registered notice on 13.12.76, but it was not replied by defendant No. 1, despite the plaintiff being co-sharer. the defendant No. 1 did not re-transfer the property to the plaintiff. Then in pare 6, it has been pleaded, that the wall situated in between the plaintiff's house, and the disputed 'house plot', being "A 6" is joint wall, which contains 7 Alaas, and thus the plaintiff is entitled to preempt the sale. 3. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit, and pleaded in pare 2, that the property purchased by him is a plot of land, whereon some Kaccha Jhumpa covered by earthen tiles is there. Then, it was contended that the property was of course purchased by the defendant No. 1, out was purchased for a price of Rs. 32,500/-, and the sale deed was executed for a price of Rs. 15,000/- only. Then, it was contended that the property was of course purchased by the defendant No. 1, out was purchased for a price of Rs. 32,500/-, and the sale deed was executed for a price of Rs. 15,000/- only. It was also contended that the wall in question is not joint, inasmuch as, the wall does not fall in the part of the plot purchased by the defendant No. 1, and therefore, is not a joint wall, rather the wail belongs exclusively to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that according to the site plan produced by the plaintiff, the wall has been shown to be his 1 exclusive one. and therefore, it is not open to the plaintiff to contend the wall to be joint. Various other pleadings were also taken. 4. A rejoinder was also filed by the plaintiff, practically reiterating the averments of the plaint 5. The learned trial Court framed 7 issues. issue No. 1 comprehended the question, about the plaintiffs ownership of the property "A B C D E F G H". Then. issue No. 2 related to the question of purchase of 'plot house' by the defendant No. 1 for a price of As. 15,000/-, then issue No. 3 covered the question about the plaintiff being co- sharer, while issue No. 4 related to the to question of wall "A to B" being a joint wall. issue No. 5 relate to other persons being necessary party, issue No. 6 was about entitlement of defendant No. 2 to compensatory cost, and issue No. 7 related to relief. 6. The learned trial Court found that issue No. 1 is not very much in dispute as regards the original house of the plaintiff, while deciding issue No. 2, it was held that the property is proved to have been sold for a price of As. 15.000/-. They while deciding issue No. 3, it was held that during course of arguments as the plaintiff has abandoned his status of co-sharer, and therefore, the issue was decided against the plaintiff. The crucial issue, being issue No. 4, about the wall being joint wall, has also been decided against the plaintiff, and it is held that, it is not proved to be common between the two parties. Thus, the suit has been dismissed. 7. The crucial issue, being issue No. 4, about the wall being joint wall, has also been decided against the plaintiff, and it is held that, it is not proved to be common between the two parties. Thus, the suit has been dismissed. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the only submission made was to the effect, that the learned trial Court has erred in holding the wall to be not common between the parties. According to the learned cousnel from the material on record, it is clearly established that the wall "A 8" Is common/joint wall, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for preemption. Elaborating the arguments, various submissions were made, including that the wail contains seven Alaas, which is indicative of the fact that the wall is joint party wall, then it was contended that it has clearly been established by the plaintiff that half of the price of construction of the wall had been paid to him by his father, which also indicates that the wall is joint wall. Then substantial reliance was placed on the sale deed dated 25.11.76, wherein it has been recited that the half price of the Eastern wall has already been paid, and therefore, the purchaser would be entitled to equally use this ss wall. This being the admission of the predecessor in interest of the defendant, the defendant is very much bound by the admission, and therefore, it is established that the wall is common wall, and the suit is required to be decreed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, and initially contended that in Ex. 7, the notice sent by the plaintiff on 14.3.77, there is no even a whisper about the wall "A B" being joint party wall. Then, in the site plan produced by the plaintiff being Ex. 4, the entire property has been shown by the two colours. Blue representing to be the property of the plaintiff, and orange being the property in possession of the defendants, and in this plan, the wall "A B" has been shown in Blue colour. Thus, even according to the plaintiff, the wall is exclusive wall of the plaintiffs. Then. 4, the entire property has been shown by the two colours. Blue representing to be the property of the plaintiff, and orange being the property in possession of the defendants, and in this plan, the wall "A B" has been shown in Blue colour. Thus, even according to the plaintiff, the wall is exclusive wall of the plaintiffs. Then. it was contended that in the plaint also, there is no pleading about the wall having been constructed by the plaintiff, and half of the cost of construction having been received by him from his so father so as to characterise the wall to be joint party wall. It was also contended that in the document Ex. A/1, which is registered release deed, which recites the property got by the plaintiff, also the western boundary has been shown to be the property of Pukhraj (plaintiffs father). and it is not mentioned that it is a joint wall. It is then contended that from a proper reading of the plaint, and the evidence of the parties, so also the documents on record, it is clear that the property conveyed vide sale deed dated 25.11.76 is an open plot, and having only some dilapidated construction, covered by old earthen tiles. In other words, it is not established that the wall in question forms part of any common building, so as to be characterised as 'Joint Party Wall', and therefore, also the plaintiff does not get any right to preemption, within the meaning of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Preemption Act. 9. Since as noticed above, the only ground urged before me, is about the plaintiffs right on the basis of the wall "A B' being joint, I need not go into the other ground of Preemption, as pleaded in the plaint. 10. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record. 11. A look at the plaint shows that in pare 2, he has claimed the entire property "A B C D E F G H" mentioned in the annexed plan (Ex. 4) to be his property, and the western boundary thereof has been described to be ( ,d edku o ,d Fkkyk )plot. 11. A look at the plaint shows that in pare 2, he has claimed the entire property "A B C D E F G H" mentioned in the annexed plan (Ex. 4) to be his property, and the western boundary thereof has been described to be ( ,d edku o ,d Fkkyk )plot. Then in para 3, it has been pleaded that this property was received by the plaintiff in Samvat year 2019 from his father, and vide release deed dated 1.7.70 he had relinquished all his rights in all other existing and future properties of his father. Then in pare 6, it has been pleaded that the wall existing between "A B C D E F G H" and the property purchased by the defendant No. 1, being "A B' is joint wall wherein there are 7 Alaas, and on the basis thereof he has claimed preemption. Then this proposition has been denied on the side of the respondent and it has been pleaded that it is wrong to contend that the property purchased by the respondent is house, father it is only plot. Likewise, the wall has been denied to be falling to any extent within the property purchased by the respondent, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a joint party wall. Then it has been pleaded in para 5 of the additional pleas, that according to the plant produced by the plaintiff, the wall in question has been shown to be his exclusive property, the plaintiff is therefore now estopped from claiming it to be a joint party wall. 12. In this background, the evidence of the parties, the oral as well as the documentary, is required to be appreciated. I may first deal with the documentary evidence available on record. The significant document is Ex. 1, the release deed, which is admittedly a registered document having been executed by the plaintiff. Therein, the dimension of the property received by the plaintiff has been given to be 176.87 sq. yards, and the plaintiff has released all his rights, in all existing and future movable and immovable to properties of his father. Then. I may look at the site plan, Ex. Therein, the dimension of the property received by the plaintiff has been given to be 176.87 sq. yards, and the plaintiff has released all his rights, in all existing and future movable and immovable to properties of his father. Then. I may look at the site plan, Ex. 4, produced by the plaintiff, and on a perusal of the measurements of the portion "A BCDE F G H", it is clear that the area including the entire wall "A B", considering it to be forming part of the portion "A B C D E F G H", rather exceeds the area of the land mentioned in Ex. 1. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the wall is existing on any common land. Then it is significant to note that there is no pleading in the plaint, about the wall having been constructed subsequent to the execution of the document Ex. 1. Then the first letter said to have been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, after the sale deed, is Ex. 6, and it dated 13.12.76. A look at this document clearly shows, that all that so has been alleged therein is, that the defendant had purchased the land adjoining the plaintiff's house, from the plaintiff's mother, without asking the plaintiff, which action of the defendant is bad, and therefore, the defendant was called upon to re-convey the land to the plaintiff. Then Ex. 7 is the I notice, sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, through the plaintiff's counsel, and is dated 14.3.77. A look at this notice also shows, that the entire property i.e. the property of the plaintiff, and that of the defendant, has collectively, been described as ( ,d edku o ,d Fkkyk ) Then the boundaries of the house have been given, and then the property in question has been describes as ( IykWV edku ). Then the only contention raised is, that the entire property is collectively covered by two Pattas, and thus. the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property, and therefore, the seller had no right to sell it to anybody else, and resultantly, the plaintiff is entitled to preempt the property ( IykWV edku ). It is to again. significant to note, that in this entire notice, Ex. the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property, and therefore, the seller had no right to sell it to anybody else, and resultantly, the plaintiff is entitled to preempt the property ( IykWV edku ). It is to again. significant to note, that in this entire notice, Ex. 7 it is nowhere an averment about the wall "A B" being joint, nor is there any such averment in Ex. 6. Likewise, there is no averment in all these documents, about the wall having been constructed subsequent to the document Ex. 1. 13. Keeping in view the above state of affairs, about the documentary evidence, now I proceed to consider the oral evidence. PW/1, the plaintiff, has deposed that he received the property from his father on 1.7.70, by mutual partition, and has denied any document of partition having been executed, but then a release deed, Ex. 1 was executed, which he proved. Then he has deposed that the house purchased by defendant No. 2 fell to the share of his father, who had willed it to the plaintiff's mother. The he has deposed that the house, which fell to his share, was constructed some 2-3 months after Ex. 1, inasmuch as, the construction work was commenced in November-December, 1970, and the wall existing between the two, is joint wall. wherein there are 7 Alaas looking towards the defendant No. 1. Even at the cost of the repetition, I may again refer to Ex. 1 at this place itself wherein, the property given to the plaintiff has been described as a house. Then the witness has improved by deposing that he has paid the share for construction of Alaas. Then he has proved site plan, Ex. 4, according to him, his father expired in 1971. On coming to know of the sale, he sent a registered letter to the defendant No. 1 being Ex. 6. Then he sent a notice to the defendant, being Ex. 7. In cross-examination, he has deposed that one big house fell to the share of his other four brothers, who had mutually partitioned it, one shop fell to the share of one brother Champalal in Samvat year 2019. He has also admitted that Milapchand is his real uncle's son. He has admitted that at that time, the suit house of his mother was not constructed. He has admitted Ex. 4 to have been prepared to scale. He has also admitted that Milapchand is his real uncle's son. He has admitted that at that time, the suit house of his mother was not constructed. He has admitted Ex. 4 to have been prepared to scale. The he has deposed that his mother had sold the house because she was annoyed of him. Then he has further improved by deposing that the Alaas were kept at the behest of his father, and that the wall exists on the joint land of himself, and his father. He has also deposed that his father's house (disputed property) is not a constructed house, while his house is constructed since 1971, He has admitted that there is no account about the half amount having been paid by his father. Then he has deposed that he was given Rs. 500/-. A proper reading of this statement makes it clear that the witness is simply 45 trying to improve upon his version in plaint, and in Ex. 6 and 7, inasmuch as, he alleges to have started construction of the house in November-December, 1970, and his father is said to have expired in 1271. The plaintiff has cleverly not disclosed the month of 1971 when his father died. In such circumstances, it does not stand to reason, of ordinary prudence, that the plaintiff could so construct this wall, and within such a short time, the accounts also would be gone into, and half price of the wall was paid. As noticed above, looking to the dimensions of the land appearing in Ex. 4, this cannot be believed that the wall is situated on any joint portion of the land, as the plaintiff is already having in his possession more than what has been described in Ex. 1. Likewise, if the wall were to be kept joint, then the Alaas were required to be having opening on both sides of the wall. while even according to the plaintiff all the Alaas open only on one side. Then PW/2 is the person, who has prepared Ex. 4, and he has admitted in cross-examination that the defendant's house has a boundary wall. 14. This is the whole evidence led on the side of the plaintiff. 15. while even according to the plaintiff all the Alaas open only on one side. Then PW/2 is the person, who has prepared Ex. 4, and he has admitted in cross-examination that the defendant's house has a boundary wall. 14. This is the whole evidence led on the side of the plaintiff. 15. Suffice to say that, thus from this evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff, if appreciated in conjunction with the documents Ex 1 4, 6 and 7, and the pleadings of the plaint, in my view, the wall in question "A B " in Ex. 4, is not established to be joint party wall. 16. Taking up the contention on the anvil of the recital in the sale deed dated.11.76. suffice it to say that the recital, at best, is a self serving admission, apart from the fact that even on a close reading of the document, it does not establish that the wall is a joint party wall, inasmuch as, in the earlier part of the document, it has clearly been mentioned that out of the entire property measuring 3502 and 6 Anaas square yards, half portion is with the plaintiff, and the other half portion is being sold to the defendant, apart form the Chabutaris. Then a look at Ex. 4 shows that even from a closest interpretation of Ex 4. it cannot be spelt out that the wall "A B" exists on any common portion of the land, rather it exists entirely on the land belonging to the plaintiff. Realising the difficulty, the plaintiff has tried to improve, while in the witness box, that the wall exists on he joint land, but then as found above, since it does not exist on joint land, it cannot be said that even from the documents of sale, the wall in question is established to be a joint party wall, so as to give any right to preemption to the plaintiff. It is again a different story that, the plaintiff is also equally bound by Ex. 1 and 4, recitals wherein are in the nature of the admissions of the plaintiff, about the wall in question being his exclusive wall. 17. There is yet another aspect of the matter viz. that the right is claimable only under Section 6(1)(ii), which reads as under: "6. 1 and 4, recitals wherein are in the nature of the admissions of the plaintiff, about the wall in question being his exclusive wall. 17. There is yet another aspect of the matter viz. that the right is claimable only under Section 6(1)(ii), which reads as under: "6. Persons to whom right of preemption accrues-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the right of preemption in respect of any immovable property transferred shall accrue to, and vest in, the following classes of persons, namely: (ii) owners of other immovable property with a stair-case or an entrance or other right or amenity common to such other property and the property transferred, and." 18. A proper reading of this Section shows, that the right of preemption is available to the owner of other immovable property with a stair-case, or an entrance, or other right, or amenity common to such other property, and the property transferred. As found from the evidence of the parties, oral as well as documentary, that the property transferred is an open plot of land, having some dilapidated construction, and thus, this wall cannot be said to be constituting "other right or amenity common to such other property, and the property transferred" within the meaning of Section 6(1)(ii). 19. Thus, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the conclusions of the learned trial Court, with respect to issue No. 4. 20. The appeal has thus, no force, and his hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******