Skip to content


(Syed) Oon Mohamed Vs. Mt. Bint Zohra and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All645; 87Ind.Cas.414
Appellant(Syed) Oon Mohamed
RespondentMt. Bint Zohra and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....14 does not make it obligatory on the vendor to give a notice to a person who has a right of preemption.3. reference is also made to section 15 which deals with the extinction of the right of pre-emption of any person to whom a notice has been given under section 14. it is argued before us that when a notice is issued under section 14 the person who receives the notice is allowed a month to make up his mind as to whether he will or will not take the property, and so it is said that if this period is given to a person with a right of pre-emption in order to determine whether he will purchase the property, similarly a right should be given to a person in the position of the present plaintiff to whom no registered notice was given under section 14. we cannot agree with this contention.....
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. We think the decision of the lower Appellate Court in this case is correct. The case is a case under the Agra Pre-emption Act (XI of 1922). One of the pleas which was raised by the defendant purchaser was that the plaintiff pre-emptor had been told about the proposed sale and had intimated that he did not desire to purchase the property.

2. It was argued in the Court below and it is argued here that the terms of Sections 14 and 15 of the Agra Pre-emption Act ought to be applied to this case and that it ought to be held that a notice under Section 14 should have issued to the plaintiff as being a person who was entitled to a right of pre-emption. As regards this argument it is sufficient to say that Section 14 does not make it obligatory on the vendor to give a notice to a person who has a right of preemption.

3. Reference is also made to Section 15 which deals with the extinction of the right of pre-emption of any person to whom a notice has been given under Section 14. It is argued before us that when a notice is issued under Section 14 the person who receives the notice is allowed a month to make up his mind as to whether he will or will not take the property, and so it is said that if this period is given to a person with a right of pre-emption in order to determine whether he will purchase the property, similarly a right should be given to a person in the position of the present plaintiff to whom no registered notice was given under Section 14. We cannot agree with this contention either. Section 15, as we have said, merely lays down that when a notice has been issued to any person under Section 14 his right of pre-emption is extinguished unless he communicates his intention to purchase the property within one month.

4. We think the learned Judge of the Court below was right in saying that it is not compulsory for a vendor to give a notice under Section 14. He may, by word of mouth or in any other way, inform a person having a right of pre-emption of his intention to sell. If, as is found in the present case, the person to whom that communication is made states there and then that he refuses to purchase the property, then we think he is disqualified from maintaining a suit for pre-emption. There is no need to refer to any special procedure laid down in Chapter III of the Agra Preemption Act. As the learned Judge of the Court below observes the case is really a case of estoppel under to Section 115 of the Evidence Act. The person whom a notice has been given having intimated his refusal and the sale having been made after that refusal cannot be allowed to turn round and seek to enforce his right of preemption through the Court. The doctrine of estoppel applies to all sorts of cases (including pre-emption cases and we think it was properly applied in the Court below. We uphold the judgment of the Court below and dismiss the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11.


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