KANTA RANI © KANTI DEVI & ANR. versus RAMA RANI

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 08-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KANTA RANI ©KANT! DEVI & ANR. 
v. 
RAMA RANI 
FEBRUARY 8, 
1988 
A 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.O.. OJHA, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 22 Rule 3-Pre-emption 
suit-Whether legal representatives of a tenant entitled to be brought on 
record. 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913: Section 15--Whether right to pre C 
emption confe"ed on tenant by customary law heritable or not-
Whether any distinction between right of pre-emption arising under 
Statute law and customary law-When right of tenancy heritable every 
incidental right thereto heritable. 
The property in dispute was sold by its original owner to the D 
respondent. Claiming that there was a local custom under which the 
tenant in occupation of a building had a right of pr.,....,mption, the 
tenant of a portion of the property filed a suit for pr.,....,mption and 
valued the portion at Rs. 10,000. The suit was opposed by the respon-
dent contending that there was no such customary law and that in case 
the decree was passed, the plaintiff should be asked to pay Rs.20,000, as E 
consideration. 
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-tenant died and the 
appelhnts, his legal representatives filed an application under Order 
22, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, for being brought on record in 
place of the original plaintiff and for permission to prosecute the suit F 
further. The respondent, opposed the application contending that the 
right of pr.,....,mption, even if it existed, was only a personal right of the 
tenant and was not heritable, and consequent on his death the right to 
sue did not survive, and therefore the snit was liable to be dismissed. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a revision G 
petition before the High Conrt, which allowed the same following a Full 
Bench decision of that Court in Chandrup Singh and Anr. v. Data Ram 
and Anr., [1985] Punjab Law Reporter 771, that a statutory right of 
pre-emption resting only on blood relationship created bys. 15(1) of the 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was not a heritable one and did not 
devolve on the heirs on the death of the pre-i!mptor before the grant of H 
895 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) 2 S.C.R. 
A the decree in the suit, and declared that the suit instituted by the tenant 
had abated on his death. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: While a right of pre-emption does not give right to an 
B interest in immovable property, the right of tenancy itself was heritable 
and, therefore, every right attached to the said right of tenancy or 
incidental to it should ordinarily be heritable. There can be no distinc-
tion between the right of pre-emption arising nuder the statutory law 
andthecustomarylaw. [900F,H] 
C 
In the instant case, the plaintiff had acquired the said right of 
pre-emption nuder customary law by virtue of right of tenancy which 
he had In the portion of the property in his possession and had instituted 
a suit for enforcing that right. The fact that the pre-emptor had died at 
the trial stage cannot make any difference. [900G] 
D 
The right to sue therefore survived on the death of the plaintiff-
tenant in favour of the appeUants, who were his legal representatives, 
and they were entitled to be brought on record In substitution of the 
original plaintiff-tenant nuder Order 22, Rnle 3 of the Civil Procedure 
Code. [902B-C] 
E 
The trial court was directed to bring the appellants on record as 
F 
legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff and to dispose of the suit 
on merits. [902C) 
Chandrup Singh and Another v. Data Ram and Another, 11982] 
Punjab Law Reporter 771, over-ruled. 
Hazari & Ors. v. Neki & Ors., [1968) 2 S.C.R. 833, followed. 
Wajid Ali & Anr. v. Shaban & Ors., I.L.R. 31 Allahabad 623, 
approved. 
G 
Muhammad Husain v. Niamet-un-nissa and Ors.. I.L.R. 20 
Allahabad 88., distinguished. 
Faqir Ali Shah v. Ram Kishan & Ors., 133 P.R. 1907, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 453 
H of 1988. 
y 
""' I 
, 
... 
"' 
.\ 
j 
KANTA RAN! v. RAMA RAN! [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 
897 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.1984 of the Punjab and 
A 
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 3411of1983. 
E.C. Agarwala for the Appellants. 
G .K. Bansal for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKA TARAMIAH, J. The two short questions involved in 
this case are (i) whether the right of pre-emption conferred on a ten-
ant by a customary law is heritable or not and (ii) whether on the death 
of such a tenant, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.