Skip to content


Mahabir Pershad and anr. Vs. Chittoo Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in138Ind.Cas.272
AppellantMahabir Pershad and anr.
RespondentChittoo Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
agra pre-emption act (xi of 1922), sections 9, 20 - sir land--sale--right of pre-emption, accrual of--sale of property back to vendor before suit--applicability of section 20--suit for pre-emption--maintainability. - .....been extinguished section 9 does not say that if property unmately passed on to an ex-proprietary tenant the right of pre-emption proviously secured is automatically extinguished. it only lays down that no right of pre-emption shall accrue on a sale to such a tenant. it is s 20 which is applicable to a case where property is reconveyed by a vendee to another person before the institution of the suit. if the property is transferred to a person having a right of pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiff, then no suit shall lie. it is therefore, obvious that a suit can be brought against chittu lal, who being an ex-proprietary tenant has no right of pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiffs. a right of pre-emption as defined in section 4(9) means the right of a.....
Judgment:

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On the 5th of July 1927, Chittu Lal sold his sir rights to Madari with the result that he became an ex-proprietary tenant of the plots. He transferred his entire proprietary interest and ceased to be a co-sharer. Subsequently on the 30th of May 1928, apparently on getting notice of the claim of pre emption, Madari sold the property back to Chittu Lal. The suit for pre-emption was instituted on the 4th of July 1928 i.e., within one year of the original sale deed. In the plaint the plaintiffs mentioned the dates of both the documents and also stated that the cause of action arose on both the dates and they wanted a decree for pre emption as against both the defendants. The claim was decreed by the first Court but the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit holding that there has been a transfer to an ex-proprietary tenant within the of Section 9 of the Agra Pre-emption and the suit is not maintainable.

2. There is no doubt that so far as the second sale of the 30th of May 1928, is concerned no right of pre-emption accrued on it Section 9 makes it quite clear that no right of pre emption accrues on a sale to an ex-proprietary tenant. Therefore if a suit had been brought more than one year after the 5th of July 1927, the plaintiffs would not been entitled to pre empts the property as against Chittu Lal on the strength of the transfer made to him on the 30th of May 1928. But there can also be no doubt that the right to pre-empt-accused under Section 11 of the Act on the 5th of July 1927, in favour of the plaintiffs against Maderi, and Chittu Lal is a subsequent transferee and therefore a representetive of Madari. The right of preemption thus accrued must subsist unless it has been extinguished Section 9 does not say that if property unmately passed on to an ex-proprietary tenant the right of pre-emption proviously secured is automatically extinguished. It only lays down that no right of pre-emption shall accrue on a sale to such a tenant. It is s 20 which is applicable to a case where property is reconveyed by a vendee to another person before the institution of the suit. If the property is transferred to a person having a right of pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiff, then no suit shall lie. It is therefore, obvious that a suit can be brought against Chittu Lal, who being an ex-proprietary tenant has no right of pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiffs. A right of pre-emption as defined in Section 4(9) means the right of a person on a transfer of immoveable property to be substituted in place of that transferee by reason of such right. There is no Explanation to Section 20 similar to that subsequently added to Section 12(3) which would justify the inference that an ex-proprietary tenant is to be deemed to have a right of pre emption equal or superior to that of a co sharer. Nor can any such inference be drawn from the language of Section 9. It seems to us that in view of the definition of the 'right of pre-emption' given in the Act it is not possible to hold that an ex-proprietary tenant has a right of pre emption equal or superior to that of a co sharer. All that is provided is that no right of pre-emption shall accrue on a sale to him taking place, and not that a right of pre-emption which has already accrued shall be extinguished. We must accordingly hold that the plaintiffs' right of pre-emption subsists.

3. The lower Appellate Court has found that the correct sale price is Rs. 208-3-3. We accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court restore the decree of the court of first instance, and extend the time for payment by two months from this date. If the amount is deposited within the time allowed the plaintiffs will have their costs from the defendant Chittu Lal. If the amount is not deposited within the time allowed the suit shall stand dismissed with costs in all courts.


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