KRISHNA MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 354 · Decided: 12-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KRISHNA MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER AND 
GUARDIAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
B 
JULY 12, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended in 1960rSub-clause 
"Fourthly" of clause (b) of sub-sec. ( 1) of section 15-Right of pre-emption 
C conferred on a co-sharer--Constitutionality of-Stranger's claim to a right of 
pre-emption after lie has acquired a co-sharer's interest-Validity of-Meaning 
of expression "other co-sharer's" appearing in sub-clause "Fourthly". 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Arts. 14, 19( 1 )(f) (as it was before its 
omission)-Right of pre-emption conferred on a co- sharer by sub-clause 
D "Fourthly" of clause (b) of sub sec.(1) of section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption 
Act, 1913 as amended in 1961>-Constitutionality of 
Constitutionality of sub-clause 'Fourthly" of clause (b) of sub-section 
(1) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 as amended in 1960 
had been challenged in this Writ petition. The right of pre-emption in the 
E concerned suits was claimed by a sister, a co-sharer. 
On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that the decision of 
Constitution Bench inAtam Prakash's case needs reconsideration as there 
is no definition of co-sharer. It was also contended that though a sister 
F could have such a claim, a brother cannot, and so, the same resulted in 
discrimination. Another point urged was that the right of pre-emption may 
not be allowed to be claimed by a stranger merely because he bad pur· 
chased the property some time back from a co-sharer. 
G 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 The challenge to the constitutionality of sub-clause 
"Fourthly" of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emp-
tion Act, 1913 as amended in 1960 has no force. [359-C] 
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR (1986) SC 859; Bhau Ram v. 
H Baij Nath, AIR (1962) SC 1476; Sant Ram v. Labh Singh, AIR (1965) SC 
354 
KRISHNA v. STATE OFHARYANA 
355 
314 and Ram Sarup v. Munshi, AIR (1963) SC 553, followed. 
1.2. Absence of the definition 'co-sharer' does not provide any reason 
to reconsider four Constitution Bench decisions because the lack of defini-
tion of co-sharer has no material bearing, as the word 'co-sharer' has to 
be taken as inter-changeable with co-owner. As to who would be co-owner 
would depend upon who wodfd.have succeeded to the property, that is, on 
the line of succession. (358-B] 
Ram Sarup v. Munshi, AIR (1963) SC 553, followed. 
A 
B 
1.3. The claim that though a sister can have such a claim, a brother C 
cannot, and so, the same results in discrimination is misconceived in as 
much as under the Hindu Succession Act, both brother and sister are 
Class II heirs and both of them are in Entry 11; the result of which is that 
because of what bas been provided in section 11 of the Act, such heirs share 
the property equally. (358-C-D] 
1.4. It cannot be said that the right of co-sharer may not be allowed 
to be claimed by a stranger merely because he had purchased the property 
sometime back from a co-sharer, as though the purchaser in question was 
initially a stranger, be having stepped into the shoes of the co-sharer bas 
D 
to be taken as a co-sharer. The objection which applies qua stranger ceases E 
to have any significance after he has acquired the right of the co-sharer. 
No objection regarding question of a co-sharer's property having been 
taken earlier, the stranger cannot be treated differently from other co-
sharer's afterwards. (358-D-E] 
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Cioomi Saraf Warden, JT (1990) 1 SC 199, 
distinguished. 
Bhikaram v. Ram Sarup, JT (1991) 4 SC 199, relied on. 
Bhoop v. Matadin, (1991) 2 SCC 128, referred to. 
Jagdish v. Nathi Ma~ (1986) 4 SCC 510, referred to. 
1.5. The expression other "co-sharer's" appearing in sub-clause 
"Fourthly", has been explained by a three Judge Bench of this Court in 
F 
G 
Bhika Ram v. Ram Sarup, JT (1991) 4 SC 199. (359-B) 
H 
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 386 of 
B 
c 
1991 etc. etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) .. 
P .C. Jain, N aresh Kaushik, Smt. Lalitha Kaushik and Shankar Divate 
for the Petitioners/Appellants. 
L.K Pandey and R.K. Maheswari for the Re~pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA, J. The law of pre-emption is, historically speaking, a 
product of custom of the Mohamedan world. It came to be enforced her
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.