Skip to content


Nihal Singh and ors. Vs. Kokale Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR8All29
AppellantNihal Singh and ors.
RespondentKokale Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
pre-emption - wajib-ul-arz--right of pre-emptor to stand in the position of the purchaser. - .....being rs. 15,000. they made a bargain with the defendants-vendors that a portion of the purchase-money should remain on credit. the plaintiffs obtained a decree. they are the appellants before the court,and they urge that they must have the same credit in respect of payment of the purchase-money as that arranged between the vendors and the vendees-defendants. i do not think that is the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz. the stranger and the vendors made some particular bargain regarding the payment of the purchase-money, with which the pre-empting plaintiff's had nothing to do i do not think it possible to say that the plaintiffs have not only the right of pre-emption, but also the right to be put in the same position, with reference to all the peculiar incidents of the payment of.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. I think that this appeal must be dismissed and the decision of the Court below affirmed. The suit is to enforce aright of pre-emption. The plaintiffs and the vendor are co-sharers. The co-sharers who are defendants in the suit sold to the other defendants, who are strangers, the amount of consideration being Rs. 15,000. They made a bargain with the defendants-vendors that a portion of the purchase-money should remain on credit. The plaintiffs obtained a decree. They are the appellants before the Court,and they urge that they must have the same credit in respect of payment of the purchase-money as that arranged between the vendors and the vendees-defendants. I do not think that is the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz. The stranger and the vendors made some particular bargain regarding the payment of the purchase-money, with which the pre-empting plaintiff's had nothing to do I do not think it possible to say that the plaintiffs have not only the right of pre-emption, but also the right to be put in the same position, with reference to all the peculiar incidents of the payment of the purchase-money, as that arranged by the vendors and the vendees. The decision of the lower Court is affirmed, and this appeal is dismissed with costs, except that the plaintiffs are to be allowed twenty-one days to deposit the purchase-money, reckoning from the day on which the decree of this Court reaches the lower Court.

Tyrrell, J.

2. I concur.


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