without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.” 20. Further, The High Court with respect to the first partition suit, observed that it could not have been decreed by virtue of the Punjab Pre-Emption (Repeal) 27 (1969) 1 SCC 869 28 (2006) 1 SCC 75 26-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 2016Act, 1973, but then noted that this is not an aspect which requires delineation given that the entitlement of share is admitted by the parties. Be that as it may. We find the said observation to be in error for the reason that the discussion of pre-emption in the judgment rendered in the first partition suit appears to correspond to an earlier transaction having taken place somewhere in the 1930s and 1940s by one Lal Singh, father of the plaintiffs in the first partition suit. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court to take a decision on the objections of the appellant afresh, on merits. It stands clarified that this Court has not expressed any