Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
25 judgments · newest first · showing 1–25
The respondents, who had been tenants of an urban immovable property (a rolling mill) since 1949, filed a suit for pre-emption after the owners sold the property to the appellants in 1983, invoking the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellants contended that a State Government notification dated …
The plaintiff Jagtar Singh claimed a right of pre-emption as a co‑sharer in a joint khewat when the owners Jhabbar Singh sold portions of the land without giving notice. While the trial court and the first appellate court held that a partition order dated 31‑July‑1982 by the Assistant Collector …
Vijay Singh, a co‑sharer, filed a pre‑emption suit against Shanti Devi after a sale of jointly owned land. An ex‑parte decree was passed in his favour in 1990, but the decree was later set aside on the ground that the defendant had not been properly served. The amendment to Section 15 of the Punjab …
The appellant, Pirthi, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption as a co‑sharer of agricultural land, before the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 was amended. While the suit was pending, the Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 substituted Section 15, restricting the right of pre‑emption to tenants …
The vendor Bhartu sold a 20-kanal portion (400/3723 share) of a jointly held land to the appellants, Jai Singh & Ors. The respondent, co‑sharer Gurmej Singh, filed a suit for possession invoking pre‑emption under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, claiming a superior right to …
Lash Singh and others filed a suit for pre‑emption of agricultural land, claiming a superior right as a co‑sharer under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. The vendor, Singh Ram, had sold half of the land, part of which was owned jointly with his sister Angrezo, a female. The trial …
Lachhman Dass, a tenant who had purchased a suit property from Jagat Ram and his wife, challenged a consent decree that granted a pre‑emption right to the daughter of the original owner, who had filed a suit for pre‑emption without impleading Dass. The Supreme Court held that the decree was void …
The case concerned two pre‑emption suits filed under the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 after the appellant purchased a one‑fourth share of agricultural land (first sale) and later a one‑eighth share (second sale) from co‑owners. The plaintiff sought to enforce his pre‑emptive right over both sales, …
The land in dispute was transferred to the appellant in 1980, after which the respondent filed a suit for pre-emption that was decreed on 27 August 1983. The decree was affirmed by the court of appeal and a second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 5 April 1984, making the decree final. When …
Bhagwan Singh, a co‑owner of undivided joint‑family agricultural land, sold portions of the land in specie to strangers who later sold parts to Karan Singh (the appellant). Bhagwan Singh filed a suit for pre‑emption under the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, claiming his co‑owner right. The trial court …
The respondents, co‑owners of land sold by a widow who possessed only a limited estate, filed a suit under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 seeking pre‑emption of the sale. The trial court decreed in their favour and the decree was upheld on appeal, but the second appeal was …
Jinda Ram, a co‑sharer and tenant, filed a suit under Section 15(b) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 seeking to pre‑empt agricultural land that had been sold. The trial court recognized his co‑sharer status and granted partial relief, but the first appellate court dismissed the suit. The Punjab & …
The appellant, a tenant of Smt. Ajudhia, sought a declaration of title over a parcel of agricultural land that had been sold in execution of a money decree against her and later transferred to an auction‑purchaser, respondent No. 11. The appellant had earlier obtained a decree under the Punjab …
The appellant purchased a share of joint family property from his sister Neeru, who sold it by a registered deed on 22 January 1985. The brother, Anil Kumar, who was not a party to the sale, filed a suit for pre-emption under clause (ii) of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The …
Ayub Khan purchased a family property from Gopal Krishan Chawla, the Karta of a Hindu joint family, after obtaining a decree for specific performance. The Karta's children, including his daughters Meeka and Madhu, and the tenants of the property filed suits claiming pre-emption under the Punjab …
The case concerned a sale of agricultural land by Mitter Sen, the mortgagor‑vendor, to Randhir Singh and others. The appellants, Ram Chand and his heirs, were tenants of the land, having been inducted by the usufructuary mortgagee under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. They claimed a …
The appellants were contesting alienations of immovable property under the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, and their suits were at the appellate stage when the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 came into force on 23 January 1973. The High Court dismissed the appeals, …
The plaintiff tenant Kishan Chand claimed a customary right of pre-emption over a portion of a building that had been sold to the respondent. He filed a suit for pre-emption, but died during the proceedings. His legal representatives applied under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC to be substituted as …
Smt. Ram Lubhai, a minor daughter of the vendor, sued three brothers for possession of land on the basis of a pre-emption right. Only one brother, Kewal Ram, was served; the other two brothers were served by substituted service and a decree was passed ex parte against them. The brothers appealed, …
The Supreme Court considered two appeals arising from the same suit. In the first appeal (Kewal Ram v. Ram Lubhai) the Court examined whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC could be filed in the trial court to set aside an ex‑parte decree against defendants who had never been …
The petitioners, sons and nephews of vendors who sold joint family land to strangers, claimed a right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Sub‑Judge initially granted them possession, but the decision was reversed by the High Court after the Supreme Court in Atam Prakash …
The Supreme Court heard two civil appeals concerning pre-emption rights under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. In Appeal No. 639/85, the plaintiffs claimed a right to pre‑empt a sale on the basis of the "thirdly" clause of s.15(1)(a), but the Court, relying on Alam Prakash v. State of Haryana, held …
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as applied in Haryana), which gave a right of pre-emption based on consanguinity. Petitioners argued that the classification violated Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, while the …
