JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 2314 of 1990 titled Meer Singh v. Raj Pal and another decided by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 6.6.1990, R.S.A. No. 2315 of 1990 titled Meer Singh v. Amar Singh and others decided by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 6.6.1990 and R.S.A. No. 263 of 1991 titled Meer Singh v. Ram Sarup and another decided by Additional District Judge Rohtak on 7.11.1990, whereby the judgments and decree passed in all the three civil suits vide which the suits for possession by pre-emption of the agricultural land were dismissed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar, were confirmed. 2. Meer Singh son of Shib Lal filed civil suit No. 434 dated 15.6.1987 against Raj Pal and Mahi Pal sons of Hari Singh for possession by way of pre-emption of the land measuring 1/8th share of 15 kanals as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint which Raj Pal etc. had purchased vide sale deed dated 13.6.1986 on payment of Rs. 30,000/-. The said suit was filed on the basis of co- sharership on payment of Rs. 23,000/- as it was stated that exaggerated price was shown fictitiously in the sale deed. 3. The respondents contested the suit and filed written statement. They stated that they had got their Khewats separated from Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar vide order dated 5.6.1987 and as such, the appellant was no longer a co-sharer in the suit land and further the suit land was actually sold for Rs. 30,000/- and this price was paid. 4. Consequently various issues were framed. 5. Vide judgment dated 30.8.1989, Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar dismissed the suit of the appellant for possession by way of pre-emption by holding that since, the suit land had been partitioned so the appellant was no longer a co-sharer in the land in dispute and as such, had not got preferential right to pre-empt the same. It was also held that the suit land was sold for Rs. 30,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 6.6.1990. 7. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal No. 2314 of 1990. 8. It was also held that the suit land was sold for Rs. 30,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 6.6.1990. 7. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal No. 2314 of 1990. 8. Meer Singh plaintiff filed another suit bearing No. 433 dated 15.6.1987 against Amar Singh and others for possession by way of pre-emption of the land measuring 1/8th share of 37 kanals 7 Marlas of agricultural land as detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint on payment of Rs. 55,700/- on the basis of co- sharership. It was stated that in the sale deed actually the sale consideration was fictitiously shown as Rs. 85,000/- and in fact it was sold for Rs. 55,700/-. 9. Amar Singh etc. contested the suit and stated that the suit land was purchased for Rs. 85,000/- and this amount was actually paid. They further stated that they got their Khewat separated vide order dated 5.6.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar and as such, the appellant had not got preferential right to pre-empt on the basis of co-sharership. 10. Consequently various issues were framed. 11. Under issue No. 1 it was held that the appellant had no superior right to pre-empt the sale in question as he was no longer a co-sharer at the time of filing the suit and the sale consideration was for Rs. 85,000/-. Consequently, the suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.1989. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 6.6.1990 and the findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed. 13. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal bearing No. 2315 of 1990. 14. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 6.6.1990 and the findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed. 13. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal bearing No. 2315 of 1990. 14. Meer Singh filed another civil suit bearing No. 477 dated 8.9.1986 against Ram Sarup and Smt. Ghhote wife of Kheyali Ram for possession by way of pre- emption on the basis of co-sharership of land as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint by stating that respondents had purchased 1/16th share of 292 Kanals 14 Marlas (as detailed in para 1 of plaint) i.e. 18 kanals 6 Marlas vide sale deed dated 17.9.1985 for sale consideration of Rs. 12,500/- and fictitiously the sale consideration of Rs. 33,500/- was shown in the sale deed and in fact the sale had taken place for Rs. 12,500/- and he had a superior right of pre-emption being a co-sharer. 15. The respondents contested the suit and filed joint written statement. They stated that sale price of Rs. 33,500/- was actually paid by them. They further stated that the appellant had no superior right of pre-emption as he was no longer a co-sharer in the suit at the time of deciding the suit. 16. Consequently various issues were framed. 17. Vide judgment dated 6.6.1989, Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar dismissed the suit for possession by holding under issue No. 1 that the appellant had got no superior right of pre-emption in respect of the sale in dispute as the respondents had got their Khewat separated through partition from the revenue Court. It was also held under issue No. 2 that the sale in question was for Rs. 33,500/- and this price was actually paid. 18. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 7.11.1990 and the findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed. 19. Aggrieved by the and decree, the plaintiff has filed regular second appeal bearing No. 263 of 1991. 20. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved, so the aforesaid three regular second appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 21. I have heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Advocate, assisted by Mr. 19. Aggrieved by the and decree, the plaintiff has filed regular second appeal bearing No. 263 of 1991. 20. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved, so the aforesaid three regular second appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 21. I have heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the file. 22. It is an admitted fact that appellant Meer Singh had filed all the three civil suits for possession by way of pre-emption on the basis of co- sharership. It has been observed by this Court in Lakhwinder Singh and others v. Balvinder Singh and others, 1987 PLR 505 that pre- emptor must retain the right of pre-emption till the date of decree of trial Court and not beyond that i.e. pre-emptor must possess a superior right of pre-emption on the date of sale, on the date of suit and also must continue to retain or possess till decree of trial Court. However, if he loses the right of pre-emption as co-sharer because of partition of joint land during pendency of the appeal, then it is of no consequence i.e. right of pre-emption of the appellant is not affected. To the same effect is the authority of the Honble Apex Court in Rikhi Ram and another v. Ram Kumar and others, AIR 1975 SC 1869. In the said authority it was observed that under Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly of the Pre-emption Act, right of pre-emption vest in a tenant but he must continue to possess that right till the date of decree. 23. Now, the question to be seen is, whether Meer Singh had superior right of pre-emption as co-sharer on the date of sale, on the date of filing the suit and till passing of the decree by the trial Court. 24. Raj Pal and Mahi Pal had purchased land measuring 1/8th share which comes to 15 Kanals as detailed in para 1 of the plaint vide sale deed dated 13.6.1986 for a sale consideration of Rs. 33,000/- while the present suit No. 434 was filed on 15.6.1987 and it was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.8.1989. From the said suit R.S.A. No. 2314 has arisen. 25. Civil Suit No. 433 was filed by the appellant on 15.6.1987. 33,000/- while the present suit No. 434 was filed on 15.6.1987 and it was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.8.1989. From the said suit R.S.A. No. 2314 has arisen. 25. Civil Suit No. 433 was filed by the appellant on 15.6.1987. In the said suit Amar Singh etc. had purchased land measuring 1/8th share which comes to 37 Kanals 7 Marlas as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, vide sale deed dated 12.6.1986 for consideration of Rs. 85,000/-. The suit was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.1989. From the said suit RSA No. 2315 of 1990 has arisen. 26. Civil Suit No. 477 was filed on 8.9.1986 by Meer Singh appellant against Ram Sarup and Smt. Ghhote. The defendants had purchased the land measuring 1/16th share of the land measuring 292 Kanals 14 Marlas as detailed in the plaint, which comes to 18 Kanals 6 Marlas through sale deed dated 17.9.1985 for sale consideration of Rs. 33,500/-. The said suit was ultimately dismissed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar vide his judgment and decree dated 6.6.1989. From the said suit R.S.A. No. 263 of 1991 has arisen. 27. Counsel for the respondents contended that status of co-sharer of the appellant had come to an end on 5.6.1987 when the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar had passed the order and had partitioned the land. 28. Counsel for the appellant contended that Courts below had committed grave error in law while concluding that ex-parte order of partition had become final. He further contended that against the order of partition which was made ex-parte, an application was made for setting aside the same, but it was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar on 1.6.1988. However, an appeal against that order was preferred which was accepted by the Collector, Jhajjar vide his order dated 12.1.1989 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision and as such, it could not be said that partition proceedings had attained finality and were complete. 29. Now the question to be seen is as to whether vide order dated 12.1.1989, the Collector had set aside the ex-parte order of partition or had simply set aside the order dated 1.6.1988 whereby their application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and it was directed that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order be decided afresh. Now the question to be seen is as to whether vide order dated 12.1.1989, the Collector had set aside the ex-parte order of partition or had simply set aside the order dated 1.6.1988 whereby their application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and it was directed that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order be decided afresh. 30. Ex. P3 is the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 according to which the appellant was shown as co-sharer in the Khewat in dispute. However, as per Ex. D3, partition between the parties is complete. On the basis of Ex. D3, mutation Ex. D5 was also sanctioned. So, the appellant was no longer a co-sharer in the suit land. Ex. D4 is the copy of the Sanad Takseem dated 5.6.1987. Ex. P.2 is the copy of the order passed by Collector, Jhajjar dated 12.1.1989. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the said order shows that after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the file he reached to the conclusion that order dated 1.6.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar was not a speaking order and he had also not mentioned the reasons, as to why he had dismissed the application for setting aside the ex- parte order of partition and thus, he accepted the appeal, set aside the order dated 1.6.1988 passed by A.C. Ist Grade and directed him that he should hear the applications dated 15.6.1987 and 4.5.1988 made for setting aside the ex- parte order afresh and decide it after hearing both the parties taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, according to this order, ex-parte order of partition dated 5.6.1987 had not been set aside and only other dated 1.6.1988 had been set aside vide which application to set aside the order dated 5.6.1987 was dismissed. Thus, the order of partition passed ex-parte on 5.6.1987 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar remains intact. 31. In the present case in two cases i.e. in civil suit No. 434 dated 15.6.1987 titled Meer Singh v. Raj Pal etc. and civil suit No. 433 dated 15.6.1987 titled Meer Singh v. Amar Singh etc. judgments were passed by the lower Court on 30.8.1989. However, in civil suit No. 477 of 8.9.1986, judgment was passed by the trial Court on 6.6.1989. and civil suit No. 433 dated 15.6.1987 titled Meer Singh v. Amar Singh etc. judgments were passed by the lower Court on 30.8.1989. However, in civil suit No. 477 of 8.9.1986, judgment was passed by the trial Court on 6.6.1989. Thus, in June 1989 or August, 1989, the order dated 5.6.1987 whereby the partition of joint Khewat was effected was in vogue i.e. it was valid and had not been set aside by any competent authority. Therefore, on 6.6.1989 or 30.8.1989 the order dated 5.6.1987 had not been set aside and on these dates Meer Singh appellant was not a co-sharer. Hence, on the dates of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, he had lost his right of pre-emption as co-sharer although he was having right of pre-emption as co-sharer on the date when he had filed civil suit No. 477 of 8.9.1986 but had no right of pre-emption when he had filed civil suits Nos. 433 and 434 on 15.6.1987. Consequently, the suits have been rightly dismissed as according to law, a pre-emptor must possess superior right of pre-emption on the date of sale, date of filing the suit and continued to retain the same or possess till decree of the trial Court. As a result of above discussion all the three regular second appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.