Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Rampada Jana VS Maniklal Samanta - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 747"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 6"], ["2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 14177"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 672"], ["Enamul Haque Being Dead His Legal Heirs: 1- 19. =Versus= Jamal Uddin And Another - Supreme Court"].Rampada Jana VS Maniklal Samanta - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 747"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 6"], ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1757"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 672"], ["2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 14973"].Rampada Jana VS Maniklal Samanta - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 747"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 6"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 672"], ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1757"].Rampada Jana VS Maniklal Samanta - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 747"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 6"], ["2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 14177"].References:- ["
Rampada Jana VS Maniklal Samanta - Current Civil Cases
"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 747"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 6"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1757"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 672"]- ["Enamul Haque Being Dead His Legal Heirs: 1- 19. =Versus= Jamal Uddin And Another - Supreme Court"]- ["2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 14177"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 160"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1266"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 401"]- ["2000 0 Supreme(P&H) 274"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1757"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 183"]
In property disputes involving joint land holdings, one common question arises: Is a petitioner entitled to exercise his preemptive right in respect any particular land to which he is and he can left other land to which he is not ? This issue often surfaces in cases of co-ownership, where co-sharers seek to preempt sales of portions of . Understanding these rights is crucial for landowners navigating sales, partitions, or transfers.
This article breaks down the legal position, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory principles, primarily under frameworks like the , and related case law. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, a has the right to exercise pre-emptive rights only in respect of the land in which he/she holds a share, and cannot claim over other lands in which he/she is not a 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65 2010 3 Supreme 750. The right of is intrinsically tied to the specific land or share owned, not extended to the entire .
In , each owns an in the whole, but rights like are linked to specific holdings unless partitioned 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 4553 2009 4 Supreme 698. The right is an incident attached to the land itself, meaning it is inherently linked to the 's interest in that land 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65 2010 3 Supreme 750.
When a sells, the buyer steps into the seller's shoes—acquiring only that share, not dominance over the 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65 1960 0 Supreme(P&H) 229. For instance, selling defined khasra numbers does not confer status across the entire property 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 601 1960 0 Supreme(P&H) 229.
This principle aligns with cases under the , , where applies to transfers of portions or shares, but conflicting views on entire share sales have led to larger bench references for clarity 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1494.
Courts have consistently ruled against expansive claims. In Jagdish v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal, the expression other co-sharers in relevant sections refers to co-sharers of the entire joint land, excluding purchasers of specific parcels 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 601. Similarly, Lachhman Singh v. Pritam Chand held that buying a fractional share of defined killas does not make one a in the whole 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65.
Supporting this, in a West Bengal case, courts affirmed for proven co-sharers with , relying on showing co-ownership 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 832. Another ruling clarified that purchasers of well-demarcated portions do not become co-sharers entitled to preempt subsequent sales 2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 831. Even for , is available, but only to true co-sharers 2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 831.
In undivided land scenarios, original co-sharers retain rights post-transfer by siblings, as seen where a surviving successfully preempted
. These decisions underscore that rights are parcel-specific.
For the legal question at hand, a may exercise pre-emptive rights only over land where they hold a share. Claiming over non-owned portions contradicts established law 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 601. This prevents abuse and protects specific interests.
Related rulings highlight possession rights: A in exclusive possession of a joint portion can construct without interference, absent damage to others 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 683. However, injunctions against co-sharers require proving exclusive possession, especially in 2014 0 Supreme(P&H) 251.
Under agrarian reforms, claims for specific kanals from joint estates are scrutinized, often tied to possession or partition decrees 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 683.
.
Claims over non-owned lands are typically dismissed as inconsistent with principles.
Procedural notes from precedents: Notice to transferees is mandatory, and applications must prove consideration
.
Property disputes can be complex—always review local laws and records. For tailored guidance, engage a legal expert. Stay informed to protect your interests in joint holdings.
.
Maiti the Learned advocate representing the petitioner raised the first point that the status of the predecessor of the parties herein over the land are not that of co-sharer and therefore the opposite parties never had the right to pray for preemptive rights . ... portions to his son ,the son cannot claim to be the co-sharer of the father because he became the absolute owner of the gifted portion and subsequent transfer by said father to other person also does #HL_ST....
Maiti the Learned advocate representing the petitioner raised the first point that the status of the predecessor of the parties herein over the land are not that of co-sharer and therefore the opposite parties never had the right to pray for preemptive rights . ... In case it is found that that he is a co-sharer in the tenancy his application will be held maintainable and he will be entitled to exercise his right o....
in favour of a bargadar, in respect of such land if after such transfer, the transferee holds as a raiyat land not exceeding one acre (or 0.4047 hectare) in area in the aggregate.] ... Prior to that many co-sharers in a particular plot might be having enjoyment of possessory right over a portion of a plot not partitioned in accordance with Section 14. ... Now applying the said test, it appears that the entire interest of the raiyat in the plot of land#HL_END....
Per contra, counsel for respondent No.l has urged that being a co-sharer, plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption and he is entitled to get a decree for possession in respect of the part of the property in which he has a joint holding. ... Supposing, the vendee purchases property for a particular purpose and by permitting partial pre-emption on payment of the whole consideration he is left with part of the property which does not serve his purpose, he is unneces....
(3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the ... Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is settled principle of law that the right of pre-emption can be claimed only with respect of....
In the application for preemption, it had been pleaded that although the petitioner was a co-sharer of the suit land, the vendor of the opposite party, did not notify the petitioner about the sale. As a non-notified co-sharer, the petitioner filed the preemption application. ... A2 and A3, the Petitioners who claimed to be co-sharer tenants were not co-sharer tenants at all, because if the entire holding had alread....
It has been pleaded by the contesting defendants that they are entitled to get 17 kanals and 11 marlas of land from the estate left behind by the predecessor-in-interest of the parties and another 11 kanals and 02 marlas of land under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. ... A decree of partition of the suit land measuring 61 kanals along with the decree of possession in respect of the remaining share of 06 kanals and 10 marlas in the suit land has also been sought....
It has come in the finding of the three courts that the petitioner is not the co-sharer and only to create a right five sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioner and mutation is also running in favour of father of the respondent no. 4 and 5 which clearly suggest that the petitioner is ... is only exercisable for the first time when the cause of such right arises but in the case in hand the issue is otherwise as such this case is not h....
It is also evident from the record of right that Prahlad Mahato being the seller, also the recorded owner in respect of plot no. 2393 and adjacent plot of land and it appears from both the Records of Rights of Prahlad and Dharani Dhar Mahato that both the brothers are still co-sharer in respect of different ... Petitioner herein further contended that the opposite party No. 1 was not a co-sharer at the relevant point of time since the property was pa....
to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer, whose right in respect of joint land has been invaded by the other co-sharers either by exclusively appropriating and cultivating land or by raising constructions thereon. ... (supra) wherein his Lordship broadly stated that there is no denying the fact that a co-sharer has no right to raises construction until the land is partitioned by metes and bounds and so even when one of the co-sharers is in exc....
As against this, the opposite party contended that since a well-demarcated portion of a holding is sold in that case the subsequent purchaser cannot become a co-sharer in respect of the said property. He also contended that although it is a bastu land yet he is entitled to get pre-emption. According to the present petitioner, he is a co-sharer in respect of the said suit land and he is entitled to get pre-emption being one of the co-sharers of the suit property. Thereafter, he sold the said property to the present opposite party (Budhan Rajak) and it was registered on 31.01....
Neither in Section 8 nor in Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the word 'preemption' is used though they sought to achieve such purposes. The right is conferred on the bargadar, co-sharer and the raiyat possession land adjoining to such plot of land which is transferred to any person other than the co-sharer of the raiyat in the plot of land, to apply for transfer. Section 9 (1) of the said Act makes it imperative for notice of the application to the transferee or any person interested and to prove consideration money paid for the transfer and other sums. In res....
The entire suit land is still joint as per jamabandi Ex.D1. No doubt, a co-sharer is entitled to injunction against other co-sharer provided he is in exclusive possession. In the present suit, it is clearly proved that the plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession of the suit land. Infact, PW1 Devi Parkash in his cross-examination has admitted that the property in dispute has not been partitioned and is still joint.
7. The petitioner is aggrieved before this Court that even if not a contiguous land holder in respect of the disputed land or plot, he nevertheless undoubtedly remains the sole surviving co-sharer in the transferred land after it was sold to the opposite parties by his brother Sambhu Nath Biswas. As such, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to pre-empt the said land in his capacity as a co-sharer.
The question of relief, however, should depend upon the circumstances of each case and that injunction should be granted, when the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated at the time of partition or that any greater injury would result in refusing the relief. The Court also referred the cases from Calcutta and Lahore and cleared the cloud over the law, in holding that the right of the co-sharer in respect of joint land should be kept separate and distinct from the question as to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer. A co-sharer is entitled to object to another co-sharer ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
