SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 25

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND G.L. OZA, JJ.
Har Narain, Appellant
Versus
Chandgi etc. etc., Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4009 of 1982, D/- 9-1-1987.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 41, Rule 33 - Suit for pre-exemption - Judgment of this Court in State of SCC this appeal has to be allowed and suit for pre-emption has to be dismissed - Learned counsel for respondents however urges that four of persons who purchased property along with appellant have not chosen to prefer the appeal and suit therefore cannot be dismissed in toto - It is difficult to agree with this submission – Held, Purchase was a joint purchase and if suit for pre-exemption was filed against all the joint purchasers other joint purchasers are also parties before us though they have not preferred an appeal - If the suit which is one for pre-emption against all joint purchasers is to be dismissed against one it has to be dismissed against all – Court do not see any difficulty in setting aside decree passed against non-appealing joint vendees also provision - Appeal allowed.

Judgement

In view of the judgment of this Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1986) 2 SCC 249, this appeal has to be allowed and the suit for pre-emption has to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, urges that four of the persons who purchased the property along with the appellant Har Narain have not chosen to prefer the appeal and suit therefore cannot be dismissed in toto. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The purchase was a joint purchase and if the suit for pre-exemption was filed against all the joint purchasers, the other joint purchasers are also parties before us though they have not preferred an appeal. If the suit which is one for pre-emption against all the joint purchasers is to be dismissed against one, it has to be dismissed against all. We do not see any difficulty in setting aside the decree passed against the non-appealing joint vendees also under the provisions of O. 41, R. 33. The appeal is therefore allowed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation AIR 1987 SC 1325

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top