Skip to content


Chabraj Singh and ors. Vs. Mahesh NaraIn Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All259; (1918)ILR40All572; 46Ind.Cas.976
AppellantChabraj Singh and ors.
RespondentMahesh NaraIn Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
case note: pre-emption - purchases made by vendee on different dates--suit to preempt first sale only--vendee claiming to be co-sharer in virtue of second purchase--suit not maintainable.;pre-emption - purchases made by vendee on different dates--suit to preempt first sale only--vendee claiming to be co-sharer in virtue of second purchase--suit not maintainable. - - .....become a co-sharer by purchase on the 27th of november, 1913, that is to say, before the present suit was instituted. no suit for pre-emption was ever instituted in respect of this second purchase. the result is that not only on the day upon which the court of first instance might have made its decree in favour of the plaintiff but even before the institution of the suit, the defendant vendee had become a co-sharer. it may be unfortunate that this matter was not gone into by the court in the first instance, which might have had the effect of giving the plaintiff express notice of the sale of the 27th of november, 1913 (which the learned vakil says he was ignorant of). this may have been an unfortunate circumstance for the plaintiff and a lucky one for the defendant vendee, but the fact.....
Judgment:
1. It appears from the finding of the court below that the vendee had become a co-sharer by purchase on the 27th of November, 1913, that is to say, before the present suit was instituted. No suit for pre-emption was ever instituted in respect of this second purchase. The result is that not only on the day upon which the court of first instance might have made its decree in favour of the plaintiff but even before the institution of the suit, the defendant vendee had become a co-sharer. It may be unfortunate that this matter was not gone into by the court in the first instance, which might have had the effect of giving the plaintiff express notice of the sale of the 27th of November, 1913 (which the learned vakil says he was ignorant of). This may have been an unfortunate circumstance for the plaintiff and a lucky one for the defendant vendee, but the fact remains that when the case was tried the vendee was able to prove that he was a co-sharer with the vendor before the date of the institution of the suit. In this view the decree of the court below was correct. We dismiss the appeal

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //