Skip to content


Musammat Sahodra Bibi Vs. Bageshri Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All154; 29Ind.Cas.1000
AppellantMusammat Sahodra Bibi
RespondentBageshri Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
pre-emption, suit for, maintainability of - vendor's title--whole property not pre-empted, effect of. - - he is not entitled to say to the vendor, i will take all the property to which you prove you have a title, but i will not take properly which you fail to prove belongs to yourself. in the present case it is perfectly clear from what took place in the court below that the vendor has (or bona fide thinks he has) some title, not necessarily a perfect title, to the property which the plaintiff in the present suit claims belongs to his son......in harballampur but only portion of the property in mirganj. he said that the vendor was only entitled to a much smaller share in mirganj than that which he purported to sell. he added to his plaint a statement that if the court found that the vendor was really entitled to all the property in mirganj which he purported to sell, then he was willing to pre-empt that also. both the courts below have dismiaseil the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he did not seek pre-emption of the entire property. in our opinion this decision was correct. a pre-emptor is not entitled in a pre-emption suit to put the vendor on proof of his title to the property which he purports to sell. the principle of preemption's substitution. a pre-emptor is, therefore, bound to take the title which the vendee.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Portion of the property was situate in one mahal and portion in another. The plaintiff claimed pre-emption of the whole of the property in Harballampur but only portion of the property in Mirganj. He said that the vendor was only entitled to a much smaller share in Mirganj than that which he purported to sell. He added to his plaint a statement that if the Court found that the vendor was really entitled to all the property in Mirganj which he purported to sell, then he was willing to pre-empt that also. Both the Courts below have dismiaseil the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he did not seek pre-emption of the entire property. In our opinion this decision was correct. A pre-emptor is not entitled in a pre-emption suit to put the vendor on proof of his title to the property which he purports to sell. The principle of preemption's substitution. A pre-emptor is, therefore, bound to take the title which the vendee was ready to take. He is not entitled to say to the vendor, 'I will take all the property to which you prove you have a title, but I will not take properly which you fail to prove belongs to yourself.' We need hardly say that we do not decide that a vendor is entitled fraudulently to insert property, to which he has no title, in the sale-deed for the purpose of inflating the price or otherwise fraudulently to defeat pre-emption. In the present case it is perfectly clear from what took place in the Court below that the vendor has (or bona fide thinks he has) some title, not necessarily a perfect title, to the property which the plaintiff in the present suit claims belongs to his son. We dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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