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

1885 Supreme(All) 113

BRODHURST, MAHMOOD, OLDFIELD, STRAIGHT, W. COMER PETHERAM
Girjadat – Appellant
Versus
Janki – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mahmood, J. - I regret, that in this case I am unable to take the same view as the learned Chief Justice and the other members of the Court. The suit was instituted to enforce the right of pre-emption founded upon the specific terms of the wajib-ul-arz of the village in which the property in dispute is situate; and it was based on the ground that the effect of an application dated the 15th August 1882 was to transfer the ownership of the property to a person whom, for the sake of convenience, I shall call the "vendee." This application was made in the Revenue Court for mutation of names, and its object was to substitute the name of the so-called vendee for that of the so-called vendor as owner of the share, on the allegation that the latter being a member of the same family had an original share in this property, though his name was not recorded. The question now before us is, whether this transaction was of such a nature as to afford a cause of action upon which a suit to enforce pre-emption may be brought?

2. I take it to be a fundamental principle relating to the exercise of the preemptive right that it cannot be enforced upon a sale which is invalid and can take no effec

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top