LexBHOOP ALLEGED SON OF SHEO versus MATADIN BHARDWAJ SON OF LAKMI CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BHOOP ALLEGED SON OF SHEO v. MATADIN BHARDWAJ SON OF LAKMI CHAND DECEMBER 4, 1990 B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure-Section 146 and order 20 Rule 14, Order 21 Rule 16--Preemption decree-Whether could be transferred to entitled purchaser to execute the same. Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Mahendergarh, in a suit, granted a pre- C emption decree in respect of agricultural land in favour of one Shanti Devi and against the appellant and directed Shanti Devi to deposit the sale price by November 17, 1968. The respondent Matadin obtained a Deed of Assignment in respect of the said decree and thereby acquired the rights of Shanti Devi therein. On the strength of the said Assign- D ment deed, he put the decree to execution by getting himself substituted as a decree-holder on October 15, 1980. He claimed actual possession of the land from the appellant. The appellant contested the execution pro- ceedings contending that the pre-emption decree was not transferable and no right passed to the respondent under the deed of assignment. It was also contended that since Shanti Devi had failed to make the E deposit, the suit stood dismissed and Shanti Devi had no subsisting right in the decree which she could pass under the assignment deed, The Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Mahendergarh held that since the amount was not deposited on or before November 18, 1968, the suit stood dismissed and thus Shanti Devi had no interest which she could transfer. He accord- ingly dismissed the execution application. Respondent Mata Din, being F aggrieved by the said order filed a revision application in the High Court. The High Court found that Shanti Devi look timely steps to deposit the sale price but due to administrative difficulties, she could deposit the amount only on November 19, 1968. The High Court there- fore held that there was no delay on the part of the decree-holder to deposit the amount and hence the amount most be taken to have been G deposited within the time allowed by the decree and so the decree- holder was competent to assign it and the assignee was entitled to execute tile same. The revision application was allowed and the execu- tion was directed to proceed. The appellant has filed this appeal against the said order after obtaining special leave and the main contention amongst others advanced on bis behalf relates to the transferability of H the decree and the maintainability of the execution proceedings. 410 BHOOP v. M. BHARDWAJ 411 Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: The right of pre-emption is generally conferred on a CO· sharer in the property or on a person who claims some right over the property e.g., a right of way, etc., or on the ground of vicinage i.e. being an owner of the adjoining property. This right may be founded in statute or custom or personal law by which the parties are governed. The sole object of conferring this right on a co-sharer or owner of an adjacent immovable property is to exclude strangers from acquiring interest in an immovable property as a co-sharer or to keep objection- able strangers away from the neighbourhood. This ript is purely personal and cannot be transferred to a third party for the obvious reason that it would defeat the very purpose ofits conferment. [416G-H) The parties In the instant case, clearly Intended to transfer Shanti Devi's interest In the pre-emptional land to Matadin. This is, therefore, not a case of a transfer of a mere decree with the property remaining vested in title In the pre-emptor. [418A] The document clearly shows that Matadln had to implead himself in place of the decree-holder as a party to the pending execution proceedings and then seek possession of the pre-emptional property. Matadin was substituted in .I>lace of the decree-holder after notice to the judgment-debtor. He was therefore, entitled to execute the decree. [418D] Matadin was entitled In law to execute the decree transferred to him and obtain possession of the land from the judgment-debtor. [ 418E) Mehr Khan v. Gu/am Rasul, AIR 1922 Lahore 300; Negeshwar v. A B c D E Taluk Singh, AIR 1930 Oudh 195; WajidAli v. Salian, [1909) ILR 31 All 623; Zita Singh v. Hazari, [1979] 3 SCR 222; Chandrup Singh v. Data F Ram, AIR 1983 P & H l; Sarju Prasad v. Jamna Prasad, (unreported) S.A. from order No. 45 of 1983 decided on November 21, 1983 and Jugal Kishore Saraj v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., [1955] SCR 1369, referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.