LexHAZARI & ORS. versus NEKI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
>-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
HAZARI & ORS.
v.
NEKI & ORS.
January 25, 1968
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Punjab Pre-emption Act (Punj. 1 of 1913), ss. 14 tl1ld 15(1)(a)-
Statutory right of Pre-emption-Whether heritable.
Puni<'b Pre-emption Act as amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960, s.
31-Whether bar to decree-Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1905),
0. 22, rr. 1 and 11-Legal representatives of statutory preemptor-If
right to sue survives.
By s. 4 of the Amending Act (Punj. Act 10 of 1960) s. 15 of the
Punjffb Pre-emption Act, 1913 was repealed and in its place was substituted
a new provision which omitted to confer a right of pre-emption in the
case of persons 'owning land in the estate' as the originals. IS(c) 'thirdly'
had done.
Retrospective effect was given to the provisions by the in-
sertion of new s. 31 in the parent Act. Jn respect of sales effected after the
promulgation of the Amending Act, one N filed suits and obtained decrees
for pre-emption in all suits against the appellants under s. 15(1){a) of
the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
These decrees were confirmed by the first
appellate court. While the second appeals were pending in the High Court,
N died, and his legal representatives were brouilbt on record. The High
Court dismissed the appeals. In appeals to t.his Court, it was contended
that (i) tho statutory right
df pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-
emption Act, was not a 'heritable right' and no decree for pre-emption
should have been passed by the lower court in favour of the legal repre-
sentatives; and (ii) s. 31 of the Act as amended retrospectively by Punjab
Act 10 of 1960, stood as a bar to the granting of a decree in favour of
substituted legal representatives.
HELD : The appeals must be dismissed.
(i) The statutory right of pre-emption though not amounting to an
interest in the land is a right which attaches to the land and which can
be enforced against a purchaser by the persons entitled to•pre-empt. The
right of pre-emption under s. 15(1) (a) of the Punjab Act of 1913 is a
personal right in the sense that the claim of the pre-emptor depends upon
the nature of his relationship with the vendor.
But under s. !4 of the
Act, the pre-emptor must be a member o.f an agricultural tribe· in the same
group of agricultural tribes, as the vendor and the land of which pre-
emption is sought must be in respect of agricultural land sold to ~ member
of the agricultural tribe.
If an involuntary transfer takes plaoe by inheri-
tance the successor to the land takes the whole bundle JJf the rights which
go with the land including the right of pre-emption.
This view is sup-
ported by the language of s. 306 of the Indian Succession Act and there-
fore, the clalm of N for pre-emption did not ab!ll!e upon his death and
his legal representatives were properly brought on -record of the second
appeals under the provisions of 0. 22, r. 1 read with 0. 22, r. JO di the
Code of Civil Procedure. [836 G; 837 B-D]
Faqir Ali Shah v. Ram Kishan d: Ors. 133 P.R. 1907 and Wa;id All
d: Ors. v. Shaban d: Ors. I.LR. 31 All 623. approved .
Muhammud Husain v. Niamat-un•nissa d: Ors. l.L.R. 20 All.
88,
referred to.
834
SUPREME COURT Rl!PORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
(ii) The Amending Act came inlo foree long before N in•tituted the
A
present suib. Even the sales of land were -cffcc1ed after the promulgation
of the Amcndlag A.ct.
In RanJ Sarup's case, the right of the plaintiff to
pre.empt 1,1,·as extinguished retrospec1ivcly; in the present case N's right to
sue has not been extinguished.
N had lhc righl of pre-emption under the
Amended Act at the time he ins1i1u1ed the suit and N's right was not
extinguished on his dealh but paS>ed to his legal representatives. 1839 G]
Ram Sarup v. Muns/ii & Ors. [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858, distinguished,
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURiso1cnoN: Civil Appeals Nos. 1148,
1656 and 2341 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
July' 27, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Ap·
peals Nos. 13 to 15 of 1965.
Prem Chand Jain and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants
(in all the appeals).
D. D. Sharma, for respondents Nos. 1 (iv to xiii) in all the
appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. These appeals arc brooght by special leave
on behalf of the defendants against the judgment of the Punjab
High Court dated 27th July, 1965 in Letters
Patent Appeals
Nos. 13 and 14 of 1965.
Dbara SiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.