2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 63085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941
RSA.No.218 OF 2010 (A)
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT DATED 13-11-2009 IN AS No.78/2000 OF
SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT DATED 28-02-2000 IN OS No.46/1998 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
APPELLANT IN R.S.A./RESPONDENT No.1 IN A.S./PLAINTIFF IN SUIT:
C.K.GANGADHARAN,
S/o CHURAMATH CHUNDAKATTU KUTTA GUPTHAN,
KADAMPAZHIPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.N.AJITH
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS IN R.S.A/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN
A.S./DEFENDANTS 2, 1 & 3 IN SUIT:
1
KUMARAN, S/o CHOLAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN,
KADAMPAZHIPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
2
C.K.PRABHAKARAN,
S/o CHURAMATH CHUNDAKKATTU KUTTA GUPTHAN,
KADAMPAZHIPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
3
BALAGUPTHAN (DIED, LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED)
S/o AMBALATH APPUKUTTA GUPTHAN,'ASWATHY',
KADAMPAZHIPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
4
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
THANKAM BALAGUPTHAN,
W/o BALAGUPTHAN, AGED 81, RESIDING AT 'ANJALI', NO.5,
MICO LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
5
Dr.SMITHA RAJAN,
D/o BALAGUPTHAN, AGED 52, RESIDING AT 'ANJALI', No.5,
MICO LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
R.S.A.No.218 of 2010
2
6
SUJIT GUPTAN, S/o BALAGUPTHAN, AGED 50,
RESIDING AT 'ANJALI', NO.5, MICO LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 3RD RESPONDENT
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 AS PER THE
ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 IN IA.3320/2017).
BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
BY ADV. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.10.2019. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A.No.218 of 2010
3
CR
['SRI P B KRISHNAN', '', 'SRI N AJITH', 'SMT GEETHA P MENON', 'SRI P M NEELAKANDAN', 'SRI R SURAJ KUMAR', 'SRI V C MADHAVANKUTTY']
What actually amounts to a 'right of pre-emption',
what are the ingredients which would constitute
'a right of pre-emption', whether an unregistered
agreement would constitute a pre-emption right over an
immovable property and whether a pre-emption right can
be enforced by way of a simple suit for mandatory
injunction, are the questions came up for consideration
in this appeal.
2.
A suit for mandatory injunction for enforcing
pre-emption right based on an unregistered agreement,
Ext.A1, decreed by the trial court, but in appeal, it
was reversed and the suit was dismissed, against which
the plaintiff came up with this appeal.
3.
Admittedly, the property originally belonged to
the mother of first defendant having an extent of
80 3/4 cents. She sold the said property for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- to her son, the first
defendant. It is thereafter the first defendant along
with his mother executed Ext.A1 unregistered agreement
4
in favour of her other son, the plaintiff herein,
reserving pre-emption right over the property, but
subsequently the first defendant sold a portion of the
property, the plaint schedule having an extent of 10
cents, to the second defendant. Thereon, the plaintiff
issued a lawyer notice and filed this suit for
mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2
to execute and register a sale deed for the sale
consideration of Rs.30,000/-.
4.
A right of pre-emption was really unknown to
Hindu law. Its origination is from the Mohammedan Law
and applied to both Hindus and Muslims based on equity
and good conscience. But it was not regulated by
statutory law except in Punjab and Agra. In so far as
Muslims are concerned, right of pre-emption forms part
of their personal law, but among Hindus, the right of
pre-emption mainly recognized as a customary right.
No doubt, the right of pre-emption can also be created
by a contract.
5.
Pre-emption is a right of claiming or
purchasing property before or in preference to others
when it was put for sale.
The basic concept of
5
pre-emption right is to preserve and give protection to
the property of family from being intruded by strangers
claiming under any member based on any transfer of
immovable property. Inorder to constitute a pre-emption
right, it should be satisfied that the pre-emptor
should have some relation with respect to the property
as a member of family, to which the property belonged
and it must find a place in the document under which
the property was given to the owner. In other words,
the pre-emption right claimed should find a place in
the document of conveyance either by gift, partition,
settlement or sale and it may be either based on
customary right or practice prevailed. A right of pre-
emption can also be created by contract between the
parties. In the former case, when it was incorporated
either as custom or practice prevailed, there need not
be any specific consideration for the pre-emption right
created. But in the later case, when the pre-emption
right was created by a separate agreement, it would
take the character of contractual obligation, for
which,
necessarily,
there
should
be
lawful
consideration. The pre-emption right being a partial
6
restraint over the right of owner restricting its
transfer and alienation, though not creates any
immediate right, title or interest over the property,
when the property either put for sale or put in sale,
it would operate entitling the pre-emptor to get the
property in his favour. Necessarily, the restraint
should be understood with the entitlement of the pre-
emptor to get the property transferred in his name and
it will have the value of the property as in the case
of a sale. The value should be computed in relation to
the value of alienation as it is a restraint on
alienation. There need not be any lawful consideration
for creating a pre-emption right, if it is based on any
custom or practice, provided tha