LACHHMAN DASS versus JAGAT RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

! I 
y 
A 
LACHHMAN DASS 
v. 
v.. 
JAGA T RAM AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
.... 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Pwijab Pre-emption Act, 1913: 
1· -
c 
Right of pre-emption-Owner of suit property transferring it to 
respondent nos.2 and 3-They transferred the same in favour of tenant on the 
said property-Daughter of original owner claiming right of pre-emption 
impleading only respondent nos. 1 and 2-Passing of consent decree by 
Court-Respondent nos. I and 2 executing a deed of gift in favour of their 
children-Grant of mutation in their favour by authorities concerned-
D Challenged by appellant/present owner-Held: Fact regarding purchase of 
suit premises by appellant known to daughter of the original owner-Despite 
notice, he was not impleaded as a party-His right to own and possess the 
suit land could not have been taken away without giving him an opportunity 
~ 
of hearing in a matter of this nature-Claimant also could not have claimed 
E 
a right of pre-emption on the bwis of consanguinity as appellant/present 
owner was not a co-sharer of her father-Respondent nos. 1 and 2 by 
suppressing material facts in collusion with original owner and claimant 
committed a fraud on Court in obtaining the consent decree-Had an 
opportunity of hearing been given to appellant/present owner, he could have 
shown that the claimant did not have any such right-Hence, impugned 
F judgment cannot be sustained-Thus set aside-Transfer of Property Act, 
1882-s.3 Constitution of lndia, 1950-Article 300-A. 
-~ 
Respondent no.9 was owner of the suit property. Appellant (plaintiff) was 
a tenant in respect thereof. The original owner transferred the suit land in 
favour of respondent no.I and his wife, respondent no.2. They, in turn, by way 
G of a registered sale deed transferred their right and interest therein in favour 
of the appellant-tenant on the suit land. Respondent no.8, daughter of the 
--
original owner filed a suit for pre-emption impleading only respondent nos. I 
" 
and 2 therein as parties. A compromise was entered into by and between the. 
parties in the said proceedings. A consent decree was passed on the basis 
H 
980 
~· 
LACHHMAN DASS v. JAGAT RAM 
981 
.. 
thereof by the civil Court. Allegedly, she was put in possession of the said A 
·~ 
land in purported execution of the decree of pre-emption. In the meantime, a 
deed of gift was executed by Respondent no.I in favour of Respondent nos.3 to 
'. 
7, his sons and daughters. They had applied for mutation of their names, which 
was granted in their favour by the authorities concerned. Assailing the said 
order of mutation as also the consent decree, a suit was filed by the appellant. B 
The suit was dismissed by the Civil Court. The first appeal as also the second 
appeal preferred thereagainst have also been dismissed by the first appellate 
Court and the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
~. -f 
Appellant contended that as he was not impleaded as a party in the suit 
for pre-emption, the decree passed therein was not binding on him; that c 
collusion on the part of Respondent nos.I, 2, 9 and his daughter, respondent 
no.8, is evident from the fact that immediately after passing of the decree in 
the said suit, a deed of gift was executed by Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour 
of their children. Therefore, the consent decree should have been set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
\. 
HELD:l.l. Respondent no. 9 could not have claimed a right of pre-
emption as a daughter of Respondent no. 8, the original owner. The fact, that 
the appellant-tenant had purchased the suit premises from respondent nos. 1 
and 2, was known to her. Appellant was in possession of the land. The execution 
of a registered deed of sale shall also be treated as a notice in terms of Section E 
3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Despite the notice, the appellant was 
not impleaded as a party. His right, therefore, to own and possess the suit 
land could not have been taken away without giving him an opportunity of 
hearing in a matter of this nature. (Paras 13, 14 and 15) (986-D-E; 987-E] 
~ 
1.2. To hold property is a constitutional right in terms of Article 300- F 
A of the Constitution oflndia. It is also a human right Right to hold property, 
therefore, cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions of a 
statute. If a superior right to hold a property is claimed, the procedures 
therefor must be complied with. The conditions precedent therefor mus

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