Skip to content


Jagrup Singh Vs. Indrasan Pande and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All216; 92Ind.Cas.1
AppellantJagrup Singh
Respondentindrasan Pande and ors.
Cases ReferredIswar Datt Upadhiya v. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya
Excerpt:
- - nothing is more important in connexion with this question and with the new act than that the decisions of this court should be consistent, and, unless there ware some very strong reasons compelling us to take a different view, we should prefer to follow the view taken in the case just cited......the sub-section providing that in a case 'where there are more persons than one of the same class claiming pre-emption,' is the vendee, or proposed vendee, or contemplated vendee, or intended vendee, a person claiming pre-emption within the meaning of the section. in the case of iswar datt upadhiya v. mahesh datt upadhiya : air1925all747 a division bench of this court, including one member of the court now sitting, has decided that question in the affirmative. nothing is more important in connexion with this question and with the new act than that the decisions of this court should be consistent, and, unless there ware some very strong reasons compelling us to take a different view, we should prefer to follow the view taken in the case just cited. in that case, for some reason the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal raises a simple question of law on the construction of Section 12, Sub-section (3) of the new Pre-emption Act. That question is this: The sub-section providing that in a case 'where there are more persons than one of the same class claiming pre-emption,' is the vendee, or proposed vendee, or contemplated vendee, or intended vendee, a person claiming pre-emption within the meaning of the section. In the case of Iswar Datt Upadhiya v. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya : AIR1925All747 a Division Bench of this Court, including one member of the Court now sitting, has decided that question in the affirmative. Nothing is more important in connexion with this question and with the new Act than that the decisions of this Court should be consistent, and, unless there ware some very strong reasons compelling us to take a different view, we should prefer to follow the view taken in the case just cited. In that case, for some reason the respondents were unrepresented, and it might be said that fact, to some extent; detracts from the authority of the decision because the appeal was allowed in their absence. But in this case the respondents have had the advantage of Dr. San to represent them and we do not think that anything could be said on behalf of the other view which has not already been said. We agree with the decision however on this further ground. The ordinary meaning of 'to pre-empt' is to purchase in preference to others; that is to say, even of the whole world; and pre-emption is the effect of the purchase. The vendee, if he is successful in the end over other competitors, does in fact pre-empt and is therefore properly spoken of as a person claiming pre-emption. It has been pointed out to us on behalf of the appellant that whereas the right of pre-emption' is spoken of in other parts of the Act, in this particular sub-section the word used with reference to what is being claimed is simply pre-emption. We are further of opinion that this interpretation satisfies another test, namely, the true construction of Section 10 where it is quite obvious that the expression 'equal' or 'inferior' right of pre-emption is used with reference to the vendee. We can understand how it was that the Courts below came to the decisions they did. The authority to which we have referred had not then been reported. It has been found that the plaintiff is related to one of the vendors and the husband of the other vendor within four degrees. The wajib-ul-arz filed shows that the property in question was obtained by one of the vendors and the husband of the other vendor from their fathers respectively, who were own brothers. The appeal must be allowed and the suit decreed subject to the condition that the plaintiff is required to pay Rs. 1,320, on account of the sale consideration, found by the Courts below, within two moths from the date. If such payment is made he will get his costs here and hitherto including fees in this Court on the higher scale from the defendant vendee. If ha fails to pay, his suit shall stand dismissed with costs here and below, including fees in this Court on the higher scale


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