Skip to content


Ranjit Singh Vs. Bhagwati Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All467; 94Ind.Cas.397
AppellantRanjit Singh
RespondentBhagwati Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. the lower appellate court has found that when this sale-deed was executed the plaintiff was present there all along; that in fact he took an active part in obtaining the sale-deed, and that his own nephew, who is a member of a joint hindu family with him, is one of the vendees under this sale-deed.2. it has further found impossible to believe that when the sale was advertised in the whole village, and a large number of villagers took steps to raise large sums of money in order to acquire the property, the plaintiff remained uninformed as he professed to be. on these findings it has held that the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption is barred by estoppel.3. there can be no doubt that having regard to the findings arrived at, there is a clear.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The lower appellate Court has found that when this sale-deed was executed the plaintiff was present there all along; that in fact he took an active part in obtaining the sale-deed, and that his own nephew, who is a member of a joint Hindu family with him, is one of the vendees under this sale-deed.

2. It has further found impossible to believe that when the sale was advertised in the whole village, and a large number of villagers took steps to raise large sums of money in order to acquire the property, the plaintiff remained uninformed as he professed to be. On these findings it has held that the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption is barred by estoppel.

3. There can be no doubt that having regard to the findings arrived at, there is a clear estoppel against the plaintiff. Having himself taken an active part in procuring the sale-deed covering the property in dispute, he cannot now turn round and claim that he has a right of pre-emption left.

4. The learned vakil for the appellant, however, argues that no question of estoppel can arise in this case inasmuch as no notice, as contemplated by Section 14 of the new Pre-emption Act, was given to the plaintiff. His contention is that under the new Act, unless a notice has been issued, a cosharer's right of preemption can never be extinguished, no matter how much estoppel there may be against him. With this contention we are wholly unable to agree. Section 14 is only permissive which gives a coshare a power to give notice by registered post to all persons having a right of preemption. In case such a notice is issued the right of such other co-sharers is extinguished. But Sections 14 and 15 do not quite mean that in no other case can a cosharer be estopped from claiming his right of pre-emption. If by his conduct he has led the vendee to believe that he has waived his right of pre-emption, then the estoppel would remain against him, even though under the circumstances it was not thought at all necessary to issue a notice to him.

5. The appeal has no force and is dismissed.


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