Skip to content


Mehdi Hasan Vs. Bacha Pande - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All114(1); 28Ind.Cas.691
AppellantMehdi Hasan
RespondentBacha Pande
Cases ReferredRaj Narain Rai v. Dunya Pande
Excerpt:
pre-emption - suit by preferential claimant brought after decree obtained by remote claimant--limitation. - - 1. this appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, the alienation complained of was made on the 27th of june 1910 to a stranger. it is perfectly clear therefore, that the present suit is barred by limitation. there the plaintiffs had brought the suit for pre-emption well within the year after the alienation had been made......alienation complained of was made on the 27th of june 1910 to a stranger. the appellant-defendant brought a suit on the 31st of march 1911 and obtained a decree for pre-emption. the present suit was not instituted until the 31st may 1912 that is to say, long after limitation which gave rise to the alleged right of pre-emption. it is perfectly clear therefore, that the present suit is barred by limitation. reliance is placed upon the case of raj narain rai v. dunya pande 5 ind. cas. 527 : 7 a.l.j. 259 : 32 a. 340. the fact in that case were quite different. there the plaintiffs had brought the suit for pre-emption well within the year after the alienation had been made. it was true that in the meantime another party had got a decree. the court held that the suit being within time and the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, The alienation complained of was made on the 27th of june 1910 to a stranger. The appellant-defendant brought a suit on the 31st of March 1911 and obtained a decree for pre-emption. The present suit was not instituted until the 31st May 1912 that is to say, long after limitation which gave rise to the alleged right of pre-emption. It is perfectly clear therefore, that the present suit is barred by limitation. Reliance is placed upon the case of Raj Narain Rai v. Dunya Pande 5 Ind. Cas. 527 : 7 A.L.J. 259 : 32 A. 340. The fact in that case were quite different. There the plaintiffs had brought the suit for pre-emption well within the year after the alienation had been made. It was true that in the meantime another party had got a decree. The Court held that the suit being within time and the plaintiff not being a party to the suit in which the decree for pre-emption had been made, the plaintiff was not bound by that decree. In our opinion the decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim was correct and ought to be restored. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.


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