JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant-plaintiffs having concurrently lost before the courts below in a suit for preemption have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 2. The learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hanumangarh dismissed the civil original suit No. 127/1995 (51/85) on 8.9.2000 and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal No.37/2007 on 19/12/2011. 3. The appellant-plaintiffs having concurrently lost before the courts below in a suit for preemption have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 2. The learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hanumangarh dismissed the civil original suit No. 127/1995 (51/85) on 8.9.2000 and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal No.37/2007 on 19/12/2011. 3. The finding of the learned appellate court, which discussed in detail, while affirming the findings on issue no.1 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, are as under:- &&%%fook|d laå&1%%& 12- bl fook|d dk izek.k Hkkj izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k ij jgk gSA vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k us vfHkopuksa esa vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k }kjk lEifŸk dks vfoHkkftr la;qDr lEifŸk gksuk crk;k gS tcfd izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk 25 o”kZ igys gh lEifŸk ds chp esa nhokj cukdj ijLij foHkktu gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa loZizFke lk{; izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dh x;h gS] ftlesa pUnziky Mh-MCY;w-1 ds :i esa lk{; esa izLrqr gqvk gS] ftlus viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd jkefoykl us crk;k Fkk fd nksuks HkkbZ;ksa us 560 njxt tehu lka>h [kjhnh Fkh] ftlesa 280 njxt tehu mlds fgLls esa feyh FkhA 24 & 25 lky igys edku dk vk/kk&vk/kk caVokjk dj fy;kA jkefoykl ds fgLls esa tks nks nqdkusa Fkh] os eq[kR;kjflag o eqUnjyky ds ikl fdjk;s ij FkhA xokg us Loa; ds ikl ihNs tks xksnke cus gq, gS] os Loa; ds ikl fdjk;s ij gksus crk;s rFkk xokg us ;g Li”V fd;k gS fd nqdkuksa dk lkSnk vyx&vyx gqvk FkkA vfuydqekj] dyoarflag o :iflag us nf{k.k dh rjQ dh nqdkus [kjhn dh FkhA Mh-MCY;w- 2 fugkypan us Hkh viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd jkefoykl us crk;k Fkk fd HkkbZ;ks dk caVokjk gks pqdk gSA izfr ijh{k.k esa xokg us dgk gS fd mlus dksbZ fyf[kr caVokjkukek ugh ns[kk] tcfd vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg ih-MCY;w- 1 Qdhjpan us viuh lk{; esa ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lEifŸk ds e/; esa nhokj [ksaph gqbZ gS rFkk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd pUnziky ftl xsV ls tkrk gS] ml xsV ds cka;h vkSj iwjh nhokjh cuh gqbZ gSA gkykafd bl xokg us Li”V fd;k gS fd og nhokj ijns ds fy, cuk;h x;h FkhA ijUrq mudk ;g rF; vfo’oluh; izrhr gksrk gS fd fdlh lEifŸk ds e/; ijns ds fy, nhokj cukbZ tk;s rFkk lkekU; O;ogkj esa Hkh fdlh lEifŸk ds e/; esa nhokj fcuk caVokjs o lhekadu ds fufeZr gksuk lEHko ugh gksrk gS rFkk i{kdkjksa ds e/; vkilh caVokjk ij eki o lahekadu ds ckn gh nhokj dk fuekZ.k fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dh ;g Hkh Lohdkjksfä jgh gS fd ijh nhokj cuh gqbZ gS] ftlls Lor% gh ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; caVokjhs ds ifj.kkeLo:i ek= lhekadu ds vk/kkj ij nhokj dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gSA fcuk caVokjs ds nhokj dk fuekZ.k fdlh izdkj lEHko ugh gks ldrkA Mh-MCY;w- 1 pUnziky us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd tks esjs fgLls nks nqdkusa Fkh] fpeuyky ds ekQZr os nksuks nqdkusa fdjk;s ij FkhA eq[kR;kfjflag ,d nqdku esa pk; nw/k dk dke djrk Fkk vkSj ihNs blds tks xksnke cus gq, Fks] os esjs ikl fdjk;s ij FksA jkefuokl ds caVokjs ds fgLls esa dbZ nqdkusa o edku cus gq, FksA ;gka ;g vafdr fd;k tkuk lehpu gksxk fd pUnziky us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus ek= nks lkS lok vkB njxt tehu [kjhnh FkhA izfr ijh{k.k esa pUnziky us ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd vfuy dqeku] dqyrrflag o :iflag us nf{k.k dh rjQ dks nqdkusa [kjhnh Fkh RkFkk izfr ijh{k.k esa iqu% ;g Li”V fd;k gS fd fookfnr lEifŸk tks mlus [kjhn dh Fkh] og edku ugh cfYd nqdkus o xksnke gSA fugkypan us vius eq[; dFkuksa eas ;g dgk gS fd lM+d dh vksj ds fgLls esa nqdkusa cuh gqbZ Fkh] ihNs xksnke FksA izfr ijh{k.k esa Hkh xokg us ;g dgk gS fd xksnkeksa esa fdjk;snkj cSBs Fks] dkSu Fks] mls irk ughA pUnziky dc ls fdjk;s ij cSBk Fkk] /;ku ughA bl xokg ls vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k }kjk izfrijh{k.k esa ;g iz’u fd;k x;k gS fd pUnziky dc ls fdjk;s ij cSBk Fkk rks xokg us dgk fd mls /;ku ugh gSA bl izdkj pUnziky ls xksnke esa fdjk;snkj gksus dh vof/k lEca/kh iz’u iwNs x;s Fks] ftlls Hkh rF; vkrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k us fookfnr ifjlj esa nqdkus gksuk ekuk gSA blh izdkj Mh-MCY;w- 4 cuokjhyky us vius eq[; dFkuksa esa ;g o.kZu fd;k gS fd guqekux<+ ta- fLFkr nks nqdku ds ‘kVVj yxk;s FksA nkSjkus izfr ijh{k.k bl xokg ls bl fcUnq ij dksbZ iz’u fd;k x;k gS fd mlus nqdkuks ds ‘kVVj ugh yxk;s gksA blh izdkj Mh-MCY;w- 5 lR;izdk’k us Hkh vius eq[; dFkuksa esa dgk gS fd pUnziky mldk pkpk yxrk gS ftldks guqekux<+ ta- esa nqdkus o xksnke eksy fy;s FksA vihykFkhZ@oknh Qdhjpan us tgka eq[; dFku esa igys ;g dgk gS fd lEifŸk dk mi;ksx fjgkb’k ds fy, djrs vk jgs gS] tcfd izfr ijh{k.k es xokg us vkxs ;g dgk gS fd gekjh blesa fjgk;’k ugh gSA fjgk;’k mlds lkeus vU; ifjlj es gSA xokg us izfr ijh{k.k esa ;g Hkh Lohdkjs fd;k gS fd esjs fgLls esa gekjh ikap nqdkusa cuh gqbZ gS] tks lkjh fdjk;s ij gS ftlesa Hkkxey czsdjh dk dke djrk gSA xokg us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd pUnziky ds ikl tks lEifŸk gS] mlds xsV vyx ls cus gq, gSA xokg us izfr ijh{k.k esa ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr lEifŸk ij mlds firk th ugh jgs] vfirq os jsYkos DokVj esa jgs FksA xokg us izfr ijh{k.k esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd rhu nqdkusa] tks dqyrarflag vkfn ds ikl gS] mudks cus gq, 20 lky gks x;sA ckdh vU; ikap nqdkusa nl lky igys HkkbZ;ksa us cukbZ FkhA D;ksafd gekjs ikl xqtkjs dk dksbZ lk/ku gh FkkA NksVk HkkbZ dksbZ dke ugh djrk FkkA mlds g`n; esa okYo esa deh Fkh] ftldk bykt pyrk FkkA xokg us ;g Hkh dgk fd pUnziky dks fdjk;s dh txg eSaus ugh nh] fdlus nh] irk ughA xokg us vkxs ;g Hkh dgk fd jkefoykl us dksbZ Hkh nqdku o dejs fdjk;s ij ugh fn;s cfYd gesa esjs firkth us fn;s Fks rFkk fdjk;s dh jkf’k dk fgLlk jkefoykl dks ugh HkstkA xokg us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd jkefoykl dh vU; lEifŸk izfroknh la- 1 pUnziky ds vykok dqyoarflag] :iflag o vfuy ds }kjk Hkh [kjhn dh x;h gS rFkk bl rF; dks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd muds }kjk dqyrarflag] vfuy o :iflag ds fo:) dksbZ gd ‘kqQk dk nkok ugh fd;k x;kA 13- bl izdkj vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k us lk{; esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr lEifŸk] tks fd 25 o”kZ igys jkefoykl o jkefoykl }kjk la;qDr :i ls Ø; dh x;h Fkh] ds e/; esa nhokj [ksaph gqbZ gSA xokg us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd pUnziky }kjk Ø; dh xbZ lEifŸk dk xsV vyx cuk gqvk gS] ftlds cka;h vksj e/; esa iwjh nhokj [ksaph gqbZ gSA tks lk{; vfHkys[k ij izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlls ;g fLFkfr Li”V gksrh gS fd pUnziky ds }kjk jkefoykl dh 200 lok 8 njxt tehu gh Ø; dh x;h gS rFkk vU; nqdkusa vfuy dqekj] dqyoar flag o :i flag }kjk Ø; dh x;h gS RkFkk Qdhjpan us viuh lk{; es ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vU; Øsrk vfuy] :iflag o dqyoarflag ds fo:) mlus dksbZ gd ‘kqQk dk nkok ugh fd;k gSA bl izdkj vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k ;g Lohdkj djrs gS fd mUgksus lEifŸk ds vkaf’kd fgLLks ds lEca/k esa gd ‘kqQk dk nkok ugh fd;k vfirq PkUnziky }kjk Ø; dh x;h lEifŸk ds ckcr gh ge ‘kqQk dk nkok fd;k gSA 14- vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd pUnziky ls fd;s x;s cS;ukek esa lEifŸk dks edku ds :i esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS rFkk blds [k.Mu esa ekSf[kd Lkk{; izLrqr ugh dh tk ldrhA blds lEcU/k es U;kf;d fofu.kZ; 1994 ¼4½ lqizhe VwMs ist&689 izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlesa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ls eSa lknj lger gaw] ijUrq mä fofu.kZ; rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k bl izdj.k esa vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk dksbZ lgk;rk ugh djrk gS D;ksfd Loa; vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k us vius izfr ijh{k.k esa Lo;a ds ifjlj esa Hkh nqdkus fufeZr gksuk fookfnr ifjlj esa Hkh nqdkusa gksus dk rF; Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk bl rF; dks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd jkefoykl ds fgLls es pUnziky ds vfrfjä dqyoarflag] vfuy o :iflag dh nqdkusa Hkh gSA blh izdkj izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd fookfnr ifjlj esa fjgk;’k ugh dj jgs gS vfirq nqdkus cukdj fdjk;s ij nh gqbZ gS rFkk bldks Hkh Li”V fd;k gS fd mudk xqtkjk ugh gksus ds dkj.k mUgkasus nqdkusa fdjk;s ij nh gqbZ gSA 15- izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k us viuh lk{; esa ;g rF; izekf.kr fd;k gS fd 25 lky iwoZ] tks lEifŸk la;qä :i ls Ø; dh x;h Fkh] mlds e/; esa nhokj cukdj mldk caVokjk fd;k tk pqdk gSA nhokj ds fo|eku gksus ds fcUnq dks vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk fookfnr ifjlj dk vyx xsV gksus ds rF; dks Hkh izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA tSlk fd Åij foospu fd;k x;k gS fd fcuk caVokjs o lhekadu ds lEifŸk ds e/; nhokj dk fuekZ.k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa lEHko ugh gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa nhokj dk fo|eku gksuk Lo;a esa ;g izdV djrk gS fd lk>snkjks ds e/; caVokjk] eki o lhekadu ds i’pkr gh nhokj dk;e dh x;h gSA vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrks ls EkSa lknj lger gwa] ijUrq rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k mä U;kf;d fofu.kZ; gLrxr vihy esa vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dh dksbZ lgk;rk ugh djrs gS D;ksfd lk{; ls tks fLFkfr Li”V gqbZ gS] mlds vuqlkj caVokjs ds vuqlkj nhokj dk fuekZ.k gksuk rFkk fookfnr lEifŸk esa nqdkus o xksnke gksus dk fcUnq iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl izdkj fook|d la-1 v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k ds i{k es r; fd;k x;k gS] tks iw.kZ :i ls U;k; laxr gSA^^ 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate submitted that since the plaintiffs were co-sharer in the jointly purchased suit property, therefore, ½ portion of the same could not have been sold by the defendant No.2-Bal Kishan s/o Ram Vilas without giving proper notice to the plaintiffs and giving them an offer to purchase the said portion of the suit property, whereas, the defendant No.2-Balkishan sold the said property in favour of defendant No.1 Chandra Pal s/o Hari Chand, who was a tenant in the disputed premises, which was being used as godown by him. He submitted that both the courts below have erred being swayed away by the mere fact that suit property was divided by a wall and assuming on that basis that there was a partition of the suit property, the defendant no.2 could sell his portion to defendant No.1 Chandra Pal without complying with the requirement of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Preemption Act, 1966. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate, relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. -1994 (2) RLW 331 in which the Division Bench of this Court held that where no partition suit was filed nor any private partition took place after the Will became operative, which would mean that both the parties continued to own the entire `Chhota makan' as co-sharers and once they are co-sharers, the plaintiff as a co-sharer has a right to pre-empt part of the property which was sold by other brother to Mandan Mohan. 6. None has appeared on behalf of the defendant to contest the present second appeal, which has come up for admission today. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the reasons assigned by the appellate court, quoted above, for deciding issue no.1, this Court is of the opinion that the present second appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law at the instance of the plaintiffs and the courts below have rightly, relying upon the evidence produced before them, held that on account of separate portion demarcated between the parties, there was a private partition of the suit property and the defendant no.2 had a right to sell his own portion to the defendant no.1. Evidence has come on record that the plaintiffs were also offered to purchase that portion of property but having failed to accept such offer, the defendant no.2 sold the same to defendant no.1, who was the existing tenant in the said portion. It is also significant to note that the plaintiffs did not claim right of preemption in respect of the entire half portion but a particular portion in that half portion, while for other shops existing on the remaining portion, which were purchased by other persons, no such right of preemption was claimed by the plaintiffs. It has also come in evidence that the suit property was not used for residence purposes and, therefore, inferring such a private partition between the parties if the right of preemption was denied to the plaintiffs, such findings cannot be said to be perverse but rather based on relevant evidence. Right of preemption is also a weak right and cannot supersede the registered sale deed executed in favour of a third party, unless the co-sharer was himself living in that portion with no wall in between them and the factum of such partition could not be inferred in the facts and circumstances of the case, as were the facts in the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, that case being distinguishable on facts cannot be applied to the present case in hand. 8. This Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Vinod Kumar & anr. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 18/1997 decided on 23/2/2007 dealt with the law of pre-emption in the following terms:- “10. The Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 was enacted with a view to consolidate the laws in this regard which have their genesis in the Mohammedan Law in different parts of the country based on customs and it provided that right of pre-emption will accrue to specified persons in the specified order upon completion of a sale or upon passing of final decree for fore-closure, subject to the specified exemption. Section 6 enumerates the persons to whom right of pre-emption accrues and it mainly depends upon some part of immovable property like common stair-case, common entrance or other right or amenity and it accrues to the owners of property servient or dominant to the property transferred. Section 6 enumerates the persons to whom right of pre-emption accrues and it mainly depends upon some part of immovable property like common stair-case, common entrance or other right or amenity and it accrues to the owners of property servient or dominant to the property transferred. Section 5 enumerates the case in which right of pre-emption does not accrue like transfer of a shop, katra, sarai, musafirkhana, dharamshala, temple, mosque or other similar buildings or upon a sale by or to the Central or State Government, or to any local authority, or transfer of property for manufacturing Industry etc. Section 8 envisages a notice to preemptors and it lays down that when any person proposes to sell, or to foreclose the right to redeem, any immovable property, in respect of which any persons have a right of pre-emption, he shall give notice to all such persons as to the price at which he is proposing so to sell or as to the amount due in respect of the mortgage proposed to be foreclosed, as the case may be.Sub-section (2) of Sec.8 lays down that such notice shall be given through the civil court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property concerned is situated, shall clearly describe such property, shall state the name and other particulars of the purchaser or the mortgagee and shall be served in the manner prescribed for service of summons in civil suits. Section 9 of the Act lays down that any person having a right of pre-emption in respect of any immovable property proposed to be sold shall lose such right unless within two months from the date of the service of such notice, he or his agent pays or tenders the price specified in the notice given under Sec.8 to the person so proposing to sell. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Bai Vs. Nand Kishore ( AIR 1991 SC 1055 ), a case arising under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, held that the right of preemption is a weak and inequitable right and can be defeated by estoppel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “The provision in the Act requiring a vendor to serve the notice on persons having right of pre-emption is condition of validity of transfer, and therefore a pre-emptor could waive it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “The provision in the Act requiring a vendor to serve the notice on persons having right of pre-emption is condition of validity of transfer, and therefore a pre-emptor could waive it. Failure to serve notice as required under the Act does not render the sale made by vendor in favour of vendee ultra vires. The test to determine the nature of interest, namely, private or public is whether the right which is renunciated is the right of party alone or of the public also in the sense that the general welfare of the society is involved. If the answer is latter then it may be difficult to put estoppel as a defence, but if it is right of party alone then it is capable of being abnegated either in writing or by conduct. The Act does not provide that in case no notice is given the transaction shall be void. The objective is to intimate the pre-emptor who may be interested in getting himself substituted. The Act does not debar the pre-emptor from giving up this right. Rather in case of its non-exercise within two months, may be for the financial reasons, the right stands extinguished. It does not pass on to anyone. No social disturbance is caused. It settles in purchaser. Giving up such right, expressly or impliedly cannot therefore be said to involve any interest of community or public welfare so as to be in mischief of public policy. Even otherwise on facts found that the pre-emptor respondent knew of the sale deed, assisted the appellant vendee in raising the construction and after the construction was completed he gave notice for exercise of the right and thereafter filed the suit would itself demonstrate that the conduct of the respondent was inequitable and the Courts in this country which are primarily the Courts of equity, justiceand good conscience cannot permit the respondent to defeat the right of appellant and invoke a right which is a weak and inequitable right.” 12. In Roopi Bai Vs. Mahaveer and ors. In Roopi Bai Vs. Mahaveer and ors. reported in AIR 1994 Rajasthan 133, learned Single Judge of this court held in para no.43 relying on the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court that the right of preemption can be lost by estoppel and acquiescence where the property is alleged to have been offered to sale to plaintiff by vendor before it was sold to defendant/purchaser and the presence of plaintiff at the time of registration of sale deed and this probability that plaintiff was actively associated with execution of sale deed, could not be ruled out, therefore, looking to the conduct of the plaintiff, it was sufficient to estop him from claimingright of pre-emption. 13. In Bishan Singh and ors. Vs. Khazan Singh and anr. Reported in AIR 1958 SC 838 , while dealing with the case arising under Punjab Pre-emption Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in para no.11 that the right being a very weak right, it can be defeated by all legitimate methods such as a vendee allowing the claimant of a superior or equal right being substituted in his place. ........ 19. In view of aforesaid discussion on statements of various witnesses, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the plaintiff had acquiesced in the matter and waived his right of pre-emption, cannot be faulted. It cannot be believed that the defendant no.1 having taken possession of the said portion of the property in 1979 having carried out some repair work and having let out two rooms to two different persons and he himself also continued to live there. All these facts would escape the notice of the plaintiff Radhey Shyam who is living in another portion of the same property and coupled with the fact that he was put to notice before giving registered sale-deed in favour of defendant no.1 and his presence on different occasions and still keeps silent & refuses to purchase the said property at the consideration offered by defendant no.1 clearly leads to the conclusion that he waived his right of pre-emption over the said portion of the property. The notice under Sec.8 of the Act is not required to be in writing unless it is served through the civil court under sub-section (2). Therefore even an oral or constructive notice to the pre-emptor can be established in view of the circumstances of the case. The notice under Sec.8 of the Act is not required to be in writing unless it is served through the civil court under sub-section (2). Therefore even an oral or constructive notice to the pre-emptor can be established in view of the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the trial court that the plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption and was thus not entitled to be substituted in place of defendant no.1 is correct and the same is affirmed by this court. 20. Consequently, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to cost. 8. Consequently, the present second appeal of the plaintiffs is found to be devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed as no substantial question of law arises out of the concurrent rejection of the present suit of pre-emption by the courts below and is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.