What is the basis for allowing the co-owner to take only one share when the co-owner is the same in both parcels sold together?

Primary text

The justification for allowing the co-owner to take only one share rests on the fact that the right to pre-emption in each parcel arises from a distinct, separate basis (i.e., co-ownership in two different properties). Therefore, the situation is treated as if there were two separate co-owners. Furthermore, if the rule for a single, indivisible share applied (requiring taking all or none), then if the co-owner chose to abandon pre-emption in one, the other co-owner would have the right to take the entirety of the remaining sold property, which is contrary to the established reality.