KARNAIL SINGH versus ANIL KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 10-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
KARNAIL SINGH 
A 
v. 
ANIL KUMAR AND ANR. 
JANUARY 10, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913-Clause (iv) of s.15 (l)(b)-Pre- emp-
tion-Sister sold her share out of joint family property-Brother entitled to 
pre-emption as "other co-sharer". 
Sister of respondent sold her share out of joint property to appellant C 
by registered sale deed dated January 22, 1985. Respondent filed suit for 
pre-emption under clause (ii) of Section 15(1)(b) of the Pubjab Pre-emp· 
ti on Act, 1913. Trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal and second appeal were 
dismissed. 
Dismissing the appeals for different reasons, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Respondent entitled to claim pre-emption as he was not 
a party to the sale transaction executed by sister and he was "other 
co-sharer" as envisaged in 15(1)(b)(fourthly) of the Punjab Pre-emption 
D 
Act, 1913. [166-B] 
E 
1.2. Clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 15(l)(b) as amended in 1980 were 
declared ultra-vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution but as validity of 
15(1)(b)(iv) was upheld it entitled those relations covered under Section 
15(1)(b)(i) to (iii) who are "co-sh~rers" to per-emption rights. [167·B·D] 
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, [1986) 2 SCC 249 and Bhikha Ram 
v. Ram Sarup, [1992) 1 SCC 319, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.85 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 3126 of 1984. 
K.K. Mohan for the Appellant. 
D.V. Sehgal and Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. 
165 
F 
G 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana dated January 22, 1985 made in RSA 3126/84. 
The facts not in dispute are that Anil Kumar and the vendor of the 
appellant Neeru are brother and sister. Neeru sold the property in dispute 
to the appellant by a registered sale deed. Anil Kumar laid the suit for 
pre-emption under s.15(1)(b) clause secondly of the Punjab Pre-emption 
Act, 1913, (for short, 'the Act'). The trial court decreed the suit and it is 
confirmed by the appellate court. The second appeal was dismissed in 
limine. By then, this court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, [1986) 2 
C SCC 249, declared Clauses (i) to (iii) of Clause (1) of s.15(1)(b) of the Act 
as amended in 1960 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 
Consequently, the claim of the respondent on the basis of clause secondly 
of s.15(1)(a) having been declared to be ultra vires, this court granted leave. 
D 
In Atam Prakash's case, this court upheld the constitutional validity 
of Clause fourthly which postulates entitlement of pre-emption by "other 
co-sharers''. Subsequently, the questions whether the relations covered in 
Clauses (i) to (iii) of s.15(1) are co-sharers under clause fourthly and 
whether they are entitled to the benefit of the pre-emption, were referred 
to a Bench of three Judges. In Bhikha Ram v. Ram Sarnp, [1992) 1 SCC 
E 
319, this Court considered the controversy and held that s.15 after the 
amendment in 1960 provided that where the sale is of a share out of the 
joint property and is not by the co-sharers jointly, the right of pre- emption 
was vested fourthly in the "other co-sharers". It was further held that this 
court in Atom Prakash's case did not intend to exclude any specified 
p 
co-sharer from the scope of clause fourthly of s.15(1)(b) of the Act. It was 
concluded thus :-
G 
H 
"We find it difficult to hold that the purport of this Court's decision 
inAtam Prakash case was to deny the right of pre-emption to those 
relative or relative of the vendor or vendors who were specified in 
the erstwhile first three clauses of s.15(1)(b) even if they happen 
to be co-sharers. The expression 'other co-sharers' was used in the 
fourth clause of the said provision to ensure that no co-sharer was 
left out or omitted and not to deny the right to kinsfolk would have 
exercised the right in the order of preference, for which no jus-
tification was found. The relations in the first three clauses of 
.. 
.;. 
KARNAIL SINGH v. ANIL KR. 
167 
s.15(1)(b) may or may not be co-sharers. The use of the expression A 
'other' in clause fourthly conveys the possibility of their being 
co-sharer also. What this Court disapproved as offensive to Ar-
ticles 14 and 15 is the classification based on consanguinity and 
n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.