PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Karnail Singh (Now Deceased) Through His Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Mehar Singh (Now Deceased) Through His Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J.
Defendant is in appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as defendants and respondent as the plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land as described in the head note of the plaint admeasuring 11 kanal, 1 marlas.
3. As per the facts discernible from the record, one Mohinder Lal was owner of the land admeasuring 46 kanal, 9 marlas including the suit land. He sold the same to Karnail Singh, Nirbhai Singh and Gurcharan Singh in the year 1962. Two pre-emption suits were filed to preempt the sale deed executed by Mohinder Lal. One suit was at the behest of Mehar Singh, the present plaintiff. The other suit was filed by one Kishan Chand brother of vender Mohinder Lal. Decree was passed in favour of Kishan Chand on 06.05.1963. It was a consent decree. In terms of the said decree, Kishan Chand was given prior right to preempt sale deed on deposit of Rs.8,500/- by 30.06.1963. In the event of failure on part of Kishan Chand, present plaintiff Mehar Singh was granted right to preempt the sale deed by deposit of Rs.8
A tenant must demonstrate continuous entitlement to pre-empt a sale on specific key dates; failure to do so invalidates the claim.
The right of pre-emption is a very weak right.
The court ruled that co-ownership acquired through sale does not confer superior rights in pre-emption claims, and failure to prove lack of notice under the Punjab Pre-emption Act is detrimental to t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.