JUDGMENT : 1. The short controversy involved in this appeal is, whether the respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 are entitled to have the disputed property purchased in exercise of right of pre-emption on the basis of common partition wall existing between the two houses, one owned by them and the other owned by defendants No. 2 to 5 who are respondents No. 4 to 7 in this appeal. 2. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit stating therein that the defendants No. 2 to 5 (respondents No. 4 to 7 herein) owned a house in the northern side of the house owned by plaintiffs. There was a common partition wall of the joint ownership of both the parties between the two houses. Plaintiffs came to know on 04.03.1980 that defendants No. 2 to 5 were going to sell the house owned by them. They served upon defendants a registered notice on 20.03.1980. Despite that defendants No. 2 to 5 sold the house to defendant No.1 for Rs.21,000/-, though mala fidely mentioning the sale consideration as Rs.25,000/- in the said sale deed. Plaintiffs averred that they were ready and willing to purchase the house in exercise of the right of pre-emption under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. 3. Written statement came to be filed on behalf of defendant No.1 wherein, he denied all the facts mentioned in the plaint and stated that there is no common partition wall of the joint ownership between the two houses and hence, plaintiffs have no right of pre-emption. Defendant No. 3 also filed the written statement stating therein that the wall existing between the two houses was owned by defendants No. 2 to 5 only and this was not the common wall between the parties. It was also stated that firstly, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption and secondly, because of the financial constraints, they were not ready and willing to purchase the house sold by defendants. 4. On the pleadings of both the sides, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether, the plaintiffs are members of Joint Hindu Family and plaintiff No.1 is KARTA and Manager ? 2. Whether, the property in dispute described in para 3 of the plaint is owned by plaintiffs ? 3. 4. On the pleadings of both the sides, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether, the plaintiffs are members of Joint Hindu Family and plaintiff No.1 is KARTA and Manager ? 2. Whether, the property in dispute described in para 3 of the plaint is owned by plaintiffs ? 3. Whether, the common wall exists between the houses of plaintiffs and defendants which is owned by them jointly ? 4. Whether, the plaintiffs have any right of preemption in respect of the house owned by defendants No. 2 to 5 ? 5. Whether, the defendants No. 2 to 5 sold the house in dispute to defendant No.1 for sale consideration of Rs.21,000/-? 6. Whether, the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to purchase the disputed house in exercise of their right of pre-emption ? 7. Relief ?” 5. After recording the evidence and affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, learned trial Court decided the suit vide the judgment and decree impugned dated 30.11.1989. The suit was decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs are declared purchasers of the disputed house on the basis of right of preemption and their name may be substituted in place of defendant No.1 in the sale deed dated 20.03.1980. Sale consideration was determined as Rs.25,000/- and the plaintiffs were allowed the period upto dated 01.03.1990 to deposit the said sale consideration as also the registration fees etc. failing which, the suit would be liable to be dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree aforesaid, the appellant/defendant No.1 preferred this appeal. 7. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the following judgments rendered by this Court, this issue is no more res-integra that the right of preemption cannot be claimed on the basis of common wall existing between the two adjacent properties:- (1). LRs of Smt. Sire Kanwar Maloo Vs. Shri Daudas Mantri reported in 2007(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1661; (2) Satya Narain Vs. Ismile & Ors., reported in 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 895; and (3) Kamla (Smt.) & 4 Ors. Vs. Amar Chand Agarwal & 2 Ors., reported in 2009(2) DNJ (Raj.) 648. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also fairly conceded that in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in this regard, the appeal can be decided. 9. Ismile & Ors., reported in 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 895; and (3) Kamla (Smt.) & 4 Ors. Vs. Amar Chand Agarwal & 2 Ors., reported in 2009(2) DNJ (Raj.) 648. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also fairly conceded that in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in this regard, the appeal can be decided. 9. On going through the judgments referred above, it is found that in LRs of Smt. Sire Kanwar Maloo’s case (supra), while answering the reference made to Division Bench of this Court, it was held as under:- “39………………. Thus, in the ultimate conclusion we opine on the question as framed by the learned Single Judge as to whether a co-owner of the party wall can pre-empt the transfer of other immovable property under Section 6(1) of the Act, in negative and hold that no such right would accrue to a part owner of a wall, call it by any name co-owner or co-sharer.” 10. In Satya Narain case (supra), following the judgment rendered in LRs of Smt. Sire Kanwar Maloo’s case (supra), it was held that the right of pre-emption cannot be claimed on the basis of common wall only. 11. In Kamla’s (Smt.) case (supra), this Court again came to the conclusion that mere co-ownership of the wall does not give any right of pre-emption regarding the adjacent immovable property. 12. On reading the judgment impugned, it appears that the issues No. 3 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiff whereby learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the common partition wall existing between the properties owned by plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 5 is of joint ownership and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to have this disputed property purchased in exercise of his right of pre-emption under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act. The judgment arrived at by learned trial Court is not found legally sustainable in light of the principles laid down in the judgments referred above. Now this legal proposition is settled that right of pre-emption cannot be claimed on the basis of partition wall, claimed to be of co-ownership of the pre-emptor. Hence, the findings arrived by learned trial Court regarding issue No. 4 is found to be unsustainable and thus is liable to be reversed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is also liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the findings arrived by learned trial Court regarding issue No. 4 is found to be unsustainable and thus is liable to be reversed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is also liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. No other point has been raised by either of the parties in regard to this appeal. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal succeeds and the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1989 passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. 15. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.